Franklin Community News

Thursday, September 17, 2026

Taylor’s Personal Attacks and Nelson's Double Standard

Taylor’s Council remarks, his own legal history, and Mayor Nelson’s handling of public comment raise questions about whose conduct draws enforcement—and whose receives a pass.

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Publisher, Franklin Community News

At Franklin’s April 8, 2026 Common Council meeting, County Supervisor Steve Taylor used public comment to attack “fake news,” disparage people behind Facebook pages, and celebrate apparent electoral rejection.

Mayor John Nelson introduced Taylor (RINO) as a supervisor. Taylor began speaking at approximately 41:48. The transcript excerpt captures the following sequence:

43:15: “I just want to talk about the fake news that’s out there.”

43:19: “There clearly are a few deranged individuals that have a Facebook page.”

43:24: “They like to put out false narratives.”

43:28: “These are obsessed individuals.”

43:30: “One’s obsessed, a psycho, stalker.”

43:34: “I think our community saw that.”

43:36: “They saw who he was.”

43:38: “They saw who they supported, and they outright rejected it.”

43:43: “Besides, unfortunately, the 9th District, but I think there’s other issues there.”

Taylor then turned to the upcoming swearing-in:

43:47: “I look forward to the swearing in in what, two weeks?”

Another speaker answered, “April 21st.”

43:53: Taylor continued: “It’s going to be a glorious day.”

43:56: “I look forward to work with you guys.”

43:58: “Obviously, I represent a portion of Franklin, but as you know, I care about all of Franklin.”

Watch Taylor speaking below.

Based on my review of the meeting, and you can see for yourself, Nelson allowed these remarks without redirecting Taylor.

Why insist on compliance from some speakers while allowing another public official to make personal insults?

A sustained series of personal remarks

The sequence matters. Taylor moved from criticizing “fake news” to calling people “deranged” and “obsessed,” then singled out one man as “a psycho, stalker.” He followed those characterizations with references to political rejection and enthusiasm about incoming officials.

Taylor was entitled to challenge reporting and identify errors. In this excerpt, however, he identified no specific article, factual error, or evidence supporting his accusations.

I understood the comments to refer to me and Franklin Community News. That interpretation reflects the sequence and the use of “fake news” language by Taylor, Nelson, and Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann when discussing FCN. Taylor did not expressly name me in the excerpt.

I have documented multiple instances of Taylor referring to me as a “stalker,” despite never having been arrested, cited, charged, or convicted of stalking. Those repeated statements are being compiled for a potential defamation claim.

The mayor’s handling of the meeting did not depend on identifying Taylor’s target. The remarks presented repeated opportunities to remind him to address substantive issues without personal insults.

Taylor’s own record includes conspiracy

Taylor’s characterizations also warrant comparison with his own legal history.

As FCN previously reported, Taylor was arrested in June 1999 during an investigation into an alleged harassment-injunction violation. The supplied case summary for La Crosse County case 1999CM001006 lists a guilty plea, followed by a September 13, 1999 disposition of “Deferred Prosecution or Sentence.”

The related case, 2000CM000410, involved resisting or obstructing an officer and conspiracy under Wisconsin Statute §939.31. The supplied summaries record a jury finding of guilt on October 19, 2000. Conspiracy appears both as a separately displayed record entry and as a modifier to the obstruction offense in that same case.

According to the contemporaneous reporting examined by FCN, prosecutors alleged Taylor tried to persuade an acquaintance to take responsibility for the prohibited phone call..."Pookie". The alleged conduct therefore involved an effort to enlist another person in misleading investigators.

Taylor maintained his innocence and characterized the proceedings as politically motivated. Read: The Steve Taylor Files—From Harassment Injunction to Obstruction Conviction.

The distinctions matter: the harassment-order case lists a guilty plea and deferred disposition; the obstruction case lists a jury finding of guilt with a conspiracy modifier. The three displayed entries do not establish three separate convictions.

An elected official whose own legal history requires those distinctions should exercise comparable care when publicly characterizing someone else.

The election results deserve context

Taylor’s suggestion that the election represented a sweeping community rejection also deserves scrutiny.

Nelson won reelection on April 7 with approximately 43.8% of the mayoral vote—a plurality, not a majority. Roughly 56.2% went to other choices.

The city’s election-night report and subsequent canvass adjustments support that percentage. The canvass reduced Nelson’s total to 4,512 and identified 2,170 votes for registered write-in candidate Steve Olson; the election-night report listed 3,625 for Basil Ryan. Election results · Canvass adjustments

Those results secured Nelson another term. They did not establish community agreement with Taylor’s personal attacks.

Nor can votes for different candidates be treated as a referendum on FCN, its publisher, or its contributors. Voters make choices for many reasons. Taylor’s interpretation of their motives was his own.

Franklin’s rule covers attacks against any person

Franklin’s posted Common Council rules, rules that the Mayor reads aloud before each and every common council meeting, address personal attacks against officials, employees, and other people. Rule 10(b) includes comments unrelated to official duties or city business, while Rule 10(e) addresses offensive remarks and disruption. Read the Council rules

The mayor could have reminded Taylor to address substantive issues and avoid personal insults.

He did not need to identify the target or decide whether the remarks were defamatory to give that reminder. Taylor’s status as a county supervisor did not exempt him from the standards expected of other speakers.

My criticism concerns the mayor’s consistency in administering the meeting.

Strict enforcement when FCN addressed accountability

On August 4, I addressed the Council about Franklin’s suspended ethics code. When my three minutes expired, I requested additional time. Alderman Salous moved to grant one additional minute, but the motion received no second.

During the ensuing exchange, Nelson ordered me to leave, and police escorted me from the chambers. FCN’s contemporaneous report includes the recording, beginning at approximately 1:31:32. Read the report and view the video

The incidents involve different provisions. Taylor’s remarks raise a personal-attack issue; mine involved a time limit and the subsequent decision to remove me.

But the broader concern is the mayor’s exercise of discretion: personal insults were allowed during Taylor’s appearance, while my comments about city accountability ended in strict enforcement and removal.

Consistent administration requires attention to all applicable rules, regardless of who is speaking.

ROC Foundation reporting: no substantive answer

Taylor’s response to subsequent FCN reporting provides additional context.

FCN reported that two independent sources familiar with the ROC Foundation’s operations said Foundation Vice President Frank Horning asked Taylor to step down as paid executive director. Effectively Taylor was FIRED. The sources said Taylor remained an unpaid board member while Horning temporarily handled executive responsibilities.

FCN disclosed that it had not obtained employment documents, payroll records, or meeting minutes independently confirming the reported change.

Before publication, FCN asked Horning and ROC Ventures CEO Mike Zimmerman to confirm, deny, or correct the information. Neither had responded as of the September 14 cutoff stated in FCN’s press release. As of this writing, FCN has received no substantive response from Horning, Zimmerman, or Taylor concerning the reported departure.

Taylor did respond in one limited way.

At 9:19 p.m. on September 14, his Milwaukee County email account registered a laughing-face reaction to FCN’s press release.

That reaction supplied no factual correction, denial, or explanation.

Silence and an emoji do not confirm the sources’ account. The reported departure remains attributed to those sources. But readers should know that the response received from Taylor offered no substantive challenge to the reporting.

As the recipient, I regarded the reaction as dismissive. Alongside his Council remarks about “fake news,” it raises a fair question: If the reporting is wrong, what specifically is wrong with it?

The conduct expected of a county supervisor

Taylor’s behavior also deserves scrutiny because he is an elected county supervisor. Nelson introduced him by that title, and Taylor expressly invoked his representative role during his remarks.

That position carries an expectation of judgment, professionalism, and respect for the public—including residents and journalists who question his conduct.

Calling people “deranged” and describing someone as “a psycho, stalker” falls short of that standard. Such language attacks personal character without giving the audience facts with which to evaluate the underlying disagreement.

An elected official can forcefully challenge reporting, demand corrections, and defend his record. Public accountability is better served when he identifies what is inaccurate and supplies evidence.

Residents should be able to question their representatives without becoming targets of personal ridicule from those representatives. This applies equally to FCN, its publisher, its contributors, and anyone else participating in public debate.

Taylor represents constituents with differing views. His conduct should demonstrate that disagreement does not diminish a resident’s entitlement to respectful treatment. Whatever his opinion of FCN, personal insults from the Council microphone are beneath the professionalism residents should expect from a county supervisor.

Public authority requires consistent treatment

Taylor is free to criticize FCN. FCN is free to examine his public statements, outside employment, legal history, and responses to reporting.

The mayor, meanwhile, is responsible for administering Council meetings consistently. Personal relationships and political disagreements should not determine which speakers receive reminders, which receive latitude, and which are ordered out.

My concern is that enforcement becomes strict when I question city accountability, while another public official’s personal insults pass without redirection.

Officials can address that concern through clear explanations and consistent conduct.

If Franklin expects speakers to avoid personal attacks, that expectation should apply when Taylor speaks. If Taylor disputes FCN’s reporting, a factual response would give readers something meaningful to evaluate.

And if election results are invoked as evidence of community judgment, those results should be presented accurately: Nelson won reelection with approximately 43.8% of the vote. That victory did not turn Taylor’s personal accusations into facts.

Residents deserve standards whose application does not depend on who is speaking, who is being criticized, or whether officials welcome the coverage.

Source transparency: Taylor’s Council quotations are transcribed from the supplied April 8 meeting-transcript screenshot. The account of the mayor’s handling of those remarks and the documentation of additional statements reflect the author’s account. The historical case information comes from supplied case-record summaries and the sources discussed in FCN’s linked June report; the summaries are not original court judgments. Election figures come from the city’s published results and canvass adjustments. Taylor’s September 14 emoji reaction is documented in the email record. The reported ROC Foundation leadership change remains attributed to two sources and has not been independently established through Foundation employment records or meeting minutes.

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/

Monday, September 14, 2026

SOURCES: STEVE TAYLOR WAS ASKED TO STEP DOWN FROM PAID ROC FOUNDATION POSITION

Taylor reportedly remains an unpaid board member as Foundation Vice President Frank Horning temporarily assumes executive responsibilities

By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve F. Taylor (RINO) was asked to step down as the paid executive director of the ROC Foundation, according to two independent, unrelated sources familiar with the Foundation’s operations.

Both sources told Franklin Community News that Foundation Vice President Frank Horning asked Taylor to leave the executive-director position. Taylor reportedly remains on the Foundation’s board of directors but now serves without compensation.

The sources said Horning—the father-in-law of ROC Ventures CEO Mike Zimmerman—has temporarily assumed the executive director’s responsibilities.

The reported change has not been publicly announced or explained. The ROC Foundation’s website continues to identify Taylor as executive director, leaving donors, sponsors and the public with apparently outdated information about who is managing the tax-exempt organization.

FCN has not obtained Foundation meeting minutes, payroll records or employment documents independently confirming whether or when Taylor was asked to step down. FCN contacted Frank Horning and Mike Zimmerman and asked them to confirm, deny or correct the reported leadership change. As of 2:00 p.m. on September 14, 2026, neither had responded. Accordingly, the leadership change, Horning’s temporary responsibilities and Taylor’s unpaid board status remain attributed to two independent sources familiar with the Foundation’s operations.

From Election Defeat to a Paid ROC Position

Taylor’s relationship with the ROC Foundation began after voters removed him from the Milwaukee County Board.

On April 3, 2018, challenger Patti Logsdon defeated incumbent Supervisor Taylor in the District 9 County Board election. The result was reported by WUWM and appears in Milwaukee County’s certified election results.

Approximately 20 months later, on December 5, 2019, Taylor announced that he had accepted the executive-director position with the newly formed ROC Foundation.

Taylor disclosed the new position in an announcement stating that he would not seek election as Milwaukee County Supervisor or run for another office during the 2020 election cycle.

The announcement published by Urban Milwaukee described the Foundation as an independent 501(c)(3) organization partnered with ROC Ventures.

Taylor nevertheless emphasized the close relationship between the organizations, stating that having ROC Ventures’ resources available would help him pursue the Foundation’s mission.

Taylor accepted the Foundation job while he was no longer on the County Board, although he was still serving as a Franklin alderman.

The potential overlap with County responsibilities became more direct after Taylor returned to the Milwaukee County Board in 2022 while continuing to receive compensation from the Foundation.

Taylor Reportedly Loses Position Paying Approximately $79,000

The ROC Foundation’s latest publicly available IRS filing reports approximately $79,000 in executive compensation for 2024.

That is the latest documented annual compensation associated with Taylor’s executive position. Because the Foundation’s 2025 return and 2026 payroll records are not publicly available, FCN cannot determine whether the amount changed before Taylor was reportedly asked to step down.

Taylor continues receiving approximately $32,819 annually as a Milwaukee County supervisor.

If his Foundation compensation remained near the 2024 level, Taylor’s publicly identified paid positions previously provided approximately:

ROC Foundation executive compensation: $79,000
Milwaukee County supervisor salary: $32,819
Combined identified annual compensation: $111,819

Taylor’s departure from the paid Foundation position would therefore eliminate approximately $79,000 in annual compensation—a reduction of approximately 71% in his publicly documented salaried compensation.

That does not necessarily mean Taylor’s County salary is his only income.

Taylor also owns an active private consulting company whose clients, revenue and payments to Taylor are not publicly known.

Journal Sentinel Exposed Two Disclosure Omissions

Taylor’s consulting company was the subject of one of two Milwaukee Journal Sentinel investigations published within four days in December 2023.

Foundation Employment Was Not Disclosed

On December 18, 2023, the Journal Sentinel published:

“For years, County Supervisor Steve Taylor failed to disclose financial ties to The Rock”

The newspaper reported that Taylor had not disclosed his paid ROC Foundation employment on the financial-disclosure documents required of Milwaukee County officials.

Taylor subsequently amended his Statement of Economic Interests to identify the employment.

The omission was significant because the Foundation is affiliated with ROC Ventures and Ballpark Commons—entities connected to a Franklin redevelopment in which Taylor had participated while holding public office.

Consulting Company Also Was Not Disclosed

Four days later, on December 22, the Journal Sentinel published:

“County Supervisor Steve Taylor fails to disclose self-named business on ethics statement”

That report disclosed that Taylor also had not listed Steve Taylor Consulting LLC on his County ethics filing.

Taylor again amended the disclosure after the newspaper questioned him.

Within the same week, outside reporting identified two separate financial relationships absent from Taylor’s original disclosures:

His paid employment with the ROC Foundation
His ownership of Steve Taylor Consulting LLC

Taylor corrected both filings after the omissions became public.

Steve Taylor Consulting LLC Remains Active

The consulting company has not been dissolved.

The Wisconsin Department of Financial Institutions currently identifies Steve Taylor Consulting, LLC as an organized Wisconsin domestic limited liability company.

The state record establishes that Taylor continues to maintain the LLC as an active legal entity. It does not establish whether the company is actively performing consulting work or producing revenue.

The company remains a possible source of income and an unresolved part of Taylor’s financial interests.

That is relevant because Taylor chairs the Milwaukee County Finance Committee and participates in decisions involving contracts, spending, development and capital projects.

Earlier FCN Investigation Examined the Overlap

In August 2025, FCN published “Supervisor Taylor’s ROC Foundation: Charity or Charade?”, examining the overlap among Taylor’s public offices, Foundation employment, consulting company and activities connected to ROC Ventures.

That investigation reported that the Foundation paid:

2021 professional and independent-contractor fees: $40,022
2022 professional and independent-contractor fees: $32,786
Two-year total: $72,808

The tax returns did not identify the recipients of those payments.

Investigative sources questioned whether any portion went to Steve Taylor Consulting LLC. FCN has not obtained invoices, cancelled checks, vendor ledgers or tax records establishing that Taylor’s company received the money.

The recipient of the $72,808 therefore remains an unanswered question—not an established payment to Taylor or his company.

The earlier investigation also reported that public records showed Taylor using his Foundation email address in communications involving:

ROC Ventures operations
Franklin development matters connected to Ballpark Commons
Communications with elected officials
Governmental matters affecting ROC-connected activities
Political activity, including his involvement with Franklin campaigns

Those records raised questions about whether Taylor’s work was confined to administering the charitable Foundation.

Independent Foundation—or Organizational Buffer?

The ROC Foundation was publicly described as independent from ROC Ventures. In practice, records reviewed by FCN show significant overlap.

Taylor:

Received compensation from the ROC Foundation.
Used a rocventures.org email address.
Communicated about operational and governmental matters affecting ROC Ventures.
Maintained Steve Taylor Consulting LLC.
Returned to the County Board while remaining the Foundation’s paid executive director.
Participated in public matters potentially affecting ROC-connected entities.
Initially failed to disclose both his Foundation employment and consulting company on County ethics filings.

A March 16, 2026 email previously obtained by FCN illustrates the overlap.

Using his ROC Ventures email account, Taylor communicated with Franklin officials about festival permits sought for ROC Ventures events. He referenced materials prepared for the Franklin Common Council and stated that “Mike and I” would discuss the proposal and answer questions.

That communication appears broader than traditional fundraising or youth-program administration. It shows Taylor participating in a governmental matter involving permits sought for ROC Ventures operations.

The documented overlap raises a central question:

Was Taylor acting solely as executive director of the independent charitable Foundation, or did that paid position also encompass government-relations and operational work benefiting ROC Ventures?

Critics have questioned whether the legally separate Foundation provided an appearance of arm’s-length separation while Taylor continued assisting the broader ROC organization.

FCN has not obtained evidence proving that the Foundation was created—or that Taylor was hired—with the specific intent to evade conflict-of-interest requirements. Describing the Foundation as a deliberate “shell” would therefore be a characterization rather than an independently established fact.

The available records support examination of how the organizations operated and which entity Taylor represented during particular communications.

Government Relations and a 501(c)(3)

Government relations are not automatically prohibited for a 501(c)(3) executive director.

The IRS explains that charitable organizations may discuss public policy and conduct some lobbying, although attempting to influence legislation cannot constitute a substantial part of a 501(c)(3)’s activities.

Federal tax law also prohibits a 501(c)(3) from participating or intervening in campaigns for or against candidates for public office. IRS campaign-intervention guidance.

The question is not simply whether Taylor communicated with government officials.

The relevant questions are:

Which organization was Taylor representing?
Was the work performed for the Foundation’s charitable mission or ROC Ventures’ business interests?
Which organization paid for Taylor’s time?
Did Taylor separately bill any work through his consulting company?
Did the Foundation board authorize operational or government-relations work for ROC Ventures?
Were the Foundation and ROC Ventures maintaining meaningful operational separation?
Were Taylor’s activities fully disclosed after he returned to the County Board?
Did Taylor recuse himself from County matters affecting ROC-connected entities?

Answering those questions would require records not presently available, including employment agreements, job descriptions, time records, invoices, consulting contracts and Foundation board minutes.

Uneven Financial Performance

The reported leadership change places renewed attention on the Foundation’s financial performance under Taylor.

ROC Foundation IRS filings show operating losses in 2020, 2021 and 2022, followed by a surplus in 2023 and another loss in 2024.

Executive compensation exceeded reported program-service spending in each year from 2020 through 2023:

2020: $56,735 in executive compensation compared with $2,835 in program spending
2021: $56,735 compared with $33,537
2022: $69,296 compared with $38,006
2023: $69,924 compared with $23,290

Over those four years, the Foundation reported approximately:

Executive compensation: $252,690
Program-service spending: $97,668

The Foundation therefore reported approximately $155,000 more in executive compensation than in program-service spending during that period.

In 2020, executive compensation was approximately 20 times reported program spending. In 2023, it was approximately three times program spending.

The Foundation’s 2024 return showed substantially greater program-service spending. It also reported:

Revenue: Approximately $106,000
Expenses: Approximately $125,000
Operating loss: Approximately $19,000
Year-end net assets: Approximately $17,000

Revenue declined approximately 44% from 2023, while net assets fell from approximately $36,000 to $17,000.

These figures do not establish why Horning reportedly asked Taylor to step down. They document the Foundation’s financial performance during Taylor’s tenure.

A Golf Tournament That Netted Negative $1

The ROC Foundation golf tournament has been one of its signature annual fundraising events.

The Foundation reported that its 2022 tournament generated $45,376 in gross receipts.

After $37,233 in direct expenses and another $8,144 in facility costs, the event produced a reported net result of:

NEGATIVE $1

The Foundation’s 2024 return reported $11,857 in gross receipts from its golf outing. Its separately reported jersey auction generated approximately $37,758 that year.

The golf tournament is therefore most accurately described as a signature or major fundraiser—not necessarily the largest event in every reporting year.

The relevant financial measure is the amount remaining after expenses to support the charitable mission.

Taylor Remained the 2026 Tournament Contact

Although Taylor reportedly no longer served as paid executive director, he remained publicly connected to the seventh annual tournament.

The public event listing identified:

Organizer Contact: Steve Taylor, ROC Foundation
stevet@rocventures.org

The listing did not identify Taylor as executive director. It described him only as “Steve Taylor, ROC Foundation,” consistent with the sources’ account that he remained involved as an unpaid board member.

The announcement stated:

“Please join us on August 21st, 2026 for the 7th Annual ROC Foundation Golf Tournament presented by The Boldt Company! Proceeds will benefit Make-A-Wish.”

The tournament was held August 21 at Whitnall Park Golf Course in Franklin. Registration was listed at $150 per golfer.

Make-A-Wish Confirms Fundraising Purpose

Based on the tournament materials and filings reviewed by FCN, the 2026 event is the first identified ROC Foundation golf tournament promoted as benefiting a specifically named, independent charitable organization.

Make-A-Wish Wisconsin subsequently confirmed through its verified Instagram account that the event occurred.

The organization reported that 116 golfers participated and that the tournament raised funds to help provide wishes for children facing critical illnesses.

Make-A-Wish thanked the golfers, the Foundation and its sponsors.

The tournament announcement and Make-A-Wish post establish that the event was intended to benefit Make-A-Wish and raised funds for that purpose.

Neither organization has publicly disclosed:

Gross tournament revenue
Direct and indirect expenses
Net proceeds
The amount transferred to Make-A-Wish

FCN therefore is not reporting that all money collected was donated or assigning a dollar value to the contribution.

The evidence establishes that the tournament raised funds for Make-A-Wish. It does not establish how much Make-A-Wish ultimately received.

From Foundation Finances to County Finance Chairman

Taylor’s reported departure comes only months after his appointment as chairman of the Milwaukee County Board’s Committee on Finance.

He also serves as chairman of the Capital Improvements Committee and as a member of the Community, Environment and Economic Development Committee and Parks and Culture Committee.

In announcing his Finance Committee position, Taylor said he would pursue “responsible budgeting” and warned that Milwaukee County faces a projected $50.8 million shortfall. Milwaukee County’s announcement.

The Bottom Line

According to two independent sources, Frank Horning asked Steve Taylor to step down from the ROC Foundation’s paid executive-director position.

Taylor reportedly lost a position associated with approximately $79,000 in annual compensation but remains on the Foundation board without pay.

His approximately $32,819 County Board salary is now his only publicly documented fixed salary. Taylor also maintains an active consulting company whose clients, revenue and payments to him are not publicly known.

Taylor’s reported departure does not remove the public-interest questions arising from his Foundation tenure, consulting company, disclosure amendments and overlapping ROC-related activities.

Those questions are particularly relevant because Taylor now chairs the Milwaukee County committee responsible for reviewing County finances.

A change in title does not change the underlying public record.

Source transparency: FCN has not obtained Foundation meeting minutes, payroll records or employment documents independently confirming whether or when Taylor left the paid executive-director position. Before publication, FCN contacted Foundation Vice President Frank Horning and ROC Ventures CEO Mike Zimmerman and asked them to confirm, deny or correct the reported leadership change. As of 2:00 p.m. on September 14, 2026, neither had responded. Accordingly, the report that Horning asked Taylor to step down, that Horning temporarily assumed the executive responsibilities and that Taylor remains an unpaid board member is attributed to two independent sources familiar with the Foundation’s operations. Public records and published reporting cited throughout this article independently establish the Foundation’s financial history, Taylor’s compensation history, his election and employment timeline, his County position and salary, his disclosure amendments and the active legal status of Steve Taylor Consulting LLC.

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/

Friday, September 11, 2026

Taylor Says “Fake News” Got the Jail Tablet Story Wrong. Here’s What the Record Actually Shows.

Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor says he had nothing to do with the original decision to provide inmates with tablets and accused unnamed “fake news blogs” of misleading the public. Some of Taylor’s corrections are supported by the Sheriff. But his own voting record complicates the broader defense.

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

Milwaukee County Supervisor Steve Taylor (D RINO) has entered the controversy over electronic communications at the Milwaukee County Jail with a lengthy public statement assigning responsibility elsewhere and criticizing reporting about the issue.

Taylor is right about an important fact: he was not serving on the County Board when the original inmate communications system was approved in 2022.

But that's not the end of the story.

Taylor: “That Train Left the Station in 2022”

Taylor wrote that the County Board approved the original request in 2022 by a 17–0 vote and emphasized:

“I was NOT on the Board at that time.”

Correct.

Taylor then went considerably further:

“The debate over telephone, video and tablets was NOT on the table as that train left the station in 2022.”

That's where Taylor's explanation becomes incomplete.

In March 2025, the Sheriff's Office returned to the County Board seeking authorization for a three-year amendment to Milwaukee County's agreement with Inmate Calling Solutions, LLC—ICSolutions—for correctional communications at the Jail and Community Reintegration Center through March 28, 2028.

Taylor voted YES.

Not once.

Twice.

Original 2022 Approval: Who Made the Motion?

County records provide additional clarity about the original 2022 ICSolutions agreement.

The request did not originate with Steve Taylor. File 21-1004 was submitted by the Chief Deputy of the Milwaukee County Sheriff’s Office and the Superintendent of the House of Correction, seeking authorization for a three-year agreement with ICSolutions to provide resident communication services at the Milwaukee County Jail and House of Correction.

When the agreement reached the full County Board on February 3, 2022, Supervisor Jason Haas made the motion to adopt it. The motion passed 17-0.

Steve F. Taylor was not a member of the County Board at the time. District 17 was then represented by Anthony Staskunas. Although the minutes list a “Supervisor Taylor” voting in favor, the Board roster establishes that this was Sequanna Taylor, the District 2 supervisor—not Steve F. Taylor.

That supports Taylor on one important point: he had no role in the County Board’s original February 2022 approval of the ICSolutions agreement.

However, that does not end the timeline. After returning to the County Board, Steve F. Taylor later participated in the 2025 consideration of a new three-year amendment to the ICSolutions agreement and voted in favor of it both in the Finance Committee and before the full County Board. Thus, the distinction is important: Taylor did not approve the original agreement, but he did vote to approve a subsequent three-year amendment involving the same contractor.

Taylor Cast a Critical 4–3 Finance Vote

On March 13, 2025, File 25-222 came before the County Board's Finance Committee.

The motion was to recommend adoption.

It passed 4–3.

Steve Taylor was one of the four yes votes.

That distinction matters. Taylor wasn't merely present while an overwhelmingly supported measure passed. His affirmative vote was mathematically necessary for the committee to recommend adoption.

One week later, on March 20, Taylor voted YES again when the amendment came before the full County Board. It passed 16–0.

That doesn't make Taylor responsible for originally putting tablets in the jail.

But it does mean the public record is considerably more complicated than suggesting the issue disappeared from County Board responsibility when the “train left the station” in 2022.

Sheriff's Own Statement Connects ICSolutions to the Tablets

That connection became even clearer on September 10.

The Milwaukee County Sheriff's Office issued a statement attempting to correct what it called misinformation about the jail technology.

Among its clarifications was this important fact:

The tablets are supplied by ICSolutions.

That's the same contractor whose correctional-communications agreement Taylor voted to amend in 2025.

The Sheriff also made several corrections that deserve to be reported.

The devices aren't taxpayer-purchased Apple iPads. According to MCSO, they're generic tablets supplied by ICSolutions and funded through fees paid by occupants and their families.

They cannot freely browse the Internet.

And the widely discussed incident involving access to explicit material involved a separate laptop provided for reviewing legal materials, according to MCSO—not one of the ICSolutions tablets.

Those are meaningful corrections.

But the Sheriff Didn't Say the Underlying Problem Was “Fake News”

There's another part of the Sheriff's statement that shouldn't be overlooked.

The Sheriff's Office acknowledges that misuse of the inmate communications system occurred.

MCSO specifically describes a case involving an occupant who attempted to contact a victim more than 1,500 times.

According to the Sheriff, the person's communications privileges were revoked and additional criminal charges followed.

That's significant because it separates two very different questions.

Were some descriptions of the technology inaccurate?

Yes.

Did the underlying problem of inmates improperly attempting to communicate with people outside the jail exist?

The Sheriff's own statement says it did.

Taylor Invokes Tiffany

Taylor's post also introduces another dimension.

He specifically says Republican gubernatorial candidate Tom Tiffany asked who was responsible and who was holding the contractor accountable.

That occurs as the jail controversy has become entangled with Wisconsin's gubernatorial campaign and criticism of Milwaukee County government.

There is also documented political proximity.

Taylor has previously received Milwaukee County Republican Party support in his own election. Tiffany is now the Republican gubernatorial candidate.

And Taylor, Tiffany and Franklin Mayor John Nelson appeared together at Franklin's St. Martin's Fair.

A photograph of the three together was included in a Milwaukee County Republican Party newsletter, according to material reviewed by FCN. FCN subsequently found that photograph was no longer present in the corresponding Facebook post.

There is no evidence establishing why the photograph was removed, and its removal should not be interpreted as evidence of wrongdoing.

Nor does a photograph of three public officials together establish that they coordinated their positions on the jail controversy.

But Taylor himself brought Tiffany into this discussion, making their political relationship relevant context.

What Taylor Leaves Out

The documentary record allows several conclusions without speculation.

The Sheriff is right to correct inaccurate claims: The tablets aren't taxpayer-purchased iPads, they don't provide unrestricted Internet access, and the pornography incident identified by MCSO involved a different device.

But the underlying communications-security controversy wasn't invented by the media. The Sheriff's own statement acknowledges serious misuse, including more than 1,500 attempted contacts with a victim.

And Taylor did participate in subsequent County action involving ICSolutions.

He voted in March 2025 to recommend a three-year amendment involving the contractor.

The Finance vote was 4–3.

Taylor provided one of those four votes.

Then he voted for the amendment again before the full County Board.

Correcting the Record Cuts Both Ways

Taylor concluded his post by telling readers to rely on “the actual press and actual journalist” rather than “fake news blogs” motivated by “personal vendettas.”

That's his opinion.

The public documents, however, can be evaluated independently of anyone's opinion about the media.

They show that he subsequently exercised his authority as a County Supervisor over an amendment involving the contractor that supplies the tablets—and voted for it twice.

And the Sheriff's own statement confirms that, notwithstanding inaccuracies surrounding some of the coverage, misuse of the communications system was real enough to result in revoked privileges and additional criminal charges.

The reporting and FACTS as identified in the minutes of the County Board meetings does not support pretending that everything concerning the tablets and their contractor “left the station” before Steve Taylor arrived.

The County Board revisited the ICSolutions relationship. Steve Taylor was there. And Steve Taylor voted yes.

What Steve Taylor forgets is that you cannot erase minutes of previous public meetings, the same as

Taylor cannot erase an arrest, charge, and conviction in 1990 for violating a restraining order and interfering with an investigation that occurred in LaCrosse when Taylor was an Alderperson...."POOKIE"

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/

Thursday, September 10, 2026

Franklin Police Department Seeks WILEAG Accreditation, Invites Residents to Community Listening Session

Accreditation process examines policies, accountability, complaint procedures, supervision, recordkeeping and whether professional standards are followed in practice

By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News

The Franklin Police Department is pursuing professional accreditation through the Wisconsin Law Enforcement Accreditation Group (WILEAG), a process that measures Wisconsin law-enforcement agencies against established professional standards covering a wide range of police operations.

As part of the accreditation effort, Franklin has scheduled an Accreditation Community Listening Session for Wednesday, September 16, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. in the Franklin Municipal Court Room, 9455 W. Loomis Road.

The session is open to the public and provides residents an opportunity to learn more about the accreditation process and offer comments as the Department works toward accreditation.

For residents, the process raises a basic question that goes beyond whether a police department has policies on paper:

What does it actually mean for a police department to be accredited?

What Is WILEAG Accreditation?

The Wisconsin Law Enforcement Accreditation Group is a Wisconsin-based law-enforcement accreditation organization.

WILEAG's full accreditation program uses its Sixth Edition Standards, which address numerous aspects of law-enforcement administration and operations.

The process is intended to establish professional benchmarks for participating agencies and provide a method for evaluating whether an agency meets those standards.

Importantly, accreditation is not simply an examination of whether a department has adopted written policies.

WILEAG describes accreditation as a process in which an agency is evaluated on the existence of and its compliance with prescribed standards.

An agency seeking full accreditation adopts and implements the applicable standards and then undertakes an extensive self-assessment. The process ultimately includes an on-site assessment, with findings and recommendations presented to WILEAG's governing body.

That means accreditation involves two related questions:

Does the Department have policies that satisfy the standards?

And:

Can the Department demonstrate that those policies and standards are actually being followed?

Franklin's Accreditation Effort Is Being Supported by Federal Funding

Franklin's pursuit of accreditation represents a significant organizational undertaking.

Federal grant information previously reviewed by Franklin Community News identifies approximately $240,330 in federal funding supporting a Franklin Police Department accreditation project running from October 1, 2025 through September 30, 2027.

The project is intended to support the Department's accreditation work and broader efforts involving professional best practices, technology, staffing, transparency, officer safety, liability reduction and operational improvements.

Franklin has also established an Accreditation Coordinator position responsible for working with command staff on accreditation requirements, documentation, policy development, compliance, audits and interaction with accrediting organizations.

The investment of federal resources and Department personnel makes the accreditation process more than an honorary designation.

The Department is undertaking a process intended to demonstrate that its policies and practices satisfy recognized professional standards.

What Does WILEAG Examine?

WILEAG's standards cover a broad range of law-enforcement functions.

They address areas including organizational authority, accountability and supervision; constitutional and legal requirements; use of police discretion; complaint and internal-affairs procedures; community engagement; communications; records and reporting; and other operational responsibilities.

Some standards establish specific requirements, while others require agencies to develop written directives governing particular law-enforcement activities.

For residents, one of the most important aspects of accreditation is that the process is intended to examine compliance, not simply the existence of policies.

A department may have a policy governing a particular activity. Accreditation asks whether the agency can demonstrate that its practices conform to the applicable standard.

Citizen Complaint Handling Is Part of Accreditation

One area addressed directly by WILEAG standards is how a law-enforcement agency receives, investigates, documents and reviews complaints involving the agency or its employees.

The standards address more than simply having a process for accepting complaints.

They include requirements concerning the investigation of complaints, responsibility for the internal-affairs function, notification of complainants, maintenance of complaint records and periodic review of complaints for patterns or trends.

Those requirements reflect an important distinction in accreditation:

Having a compliant written policy and demonstrating compliance with that policy are not necessarily the same thing.

For Franklin, the accreditation process provides an opportunity to examine how the Department's complaint system operates in practice.

Relevant questions include how complaints are classified, who is responsible for investigating them, when a matter is handled by a supervisor or through an internal-affairs process, how complainants are informed of outcomes and how complaint records are maintained.

Another question is whether the Department's records allow reviewers to follow a complaint from beginning to end—from receipt and classification through investigation, supervisory review and final disposition.

Those are institutional questions applicable to any law-enforcement agency seeking professional accreditation, regardless of who makes a complaint or how an individual case ultimately ends.

Accountability and Supervision Are Also Part of the Standards

WILEAG standards also address accountability within a police organization.

That includes accountability when authority is delegated and responsibility of supervisors for employees working under their supervision.

Those requirements matter because law enforcement necessarily involves substantial professional judgment.

Detectives decide which investigative steps are appropriate. Officers exercise discretion in responding to calls. Supervisors review reports and make decisions about whether additional work is necessary. Command personnel establish policies and allocate responsibilities.

Accreditation provides a framework for determining whether those responsibilities are clearly defined and appropriately supervised.

The relevant question is not whether every police decision produces an outcome everyone agrees with.

It is whether the Department can demonstrate that authority is exercised within established policies and that appropriate accountability and supervisory review exist.

Police Discretion Is Specifically Addressed

Police officers make discretionary decisions every day.

A reported incident may result in no enforcement action, a warning, a municipal citation, an arrest or referral to prosecutors depending on the circumstances and applicable law.

Different facts can legitimately produce different outcomes.

WILEAG standards addressing the use of discretion therefore focus attention on the policies governing those decisions and the limitations placed upon officers' discretionary authority.

For an accredited agency, the important question is whether discretionary decisions are made within an established professional framework rather than arbitrarily.

That can include examining the Department's policies, reports and supervisory review processes to determine whether enforcement decisions can be adequately documented and explained.

Accreditation Also Addresses Bias-Based Policing

WILEAG standards also prohibit bias-based policing.

The applicable standard addresses law-enforcement decisions based improperly upon specified characteristics, including race, national origin, religion, disability, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, age and political affiliation, among others.

The inclusion of political affiliation is noteworthy because public confidence in law enforcement depends in part on the expectation that police authority will be exercised independently of political considerations.

That does not mean disagreements involving elected officials automatically become accreditation issues.

It does mean an accredited police department should have policies and practices designed to ensure that law-enforcement decisions remain professionally and impartially based.

Records Matter Because Compliance Has to Be Demonstrated

Recordkeeping may sound less significant than patrol operations or criminal investigations, but it plays an important role in accreditation.

WILEAG standards address information capture, reports and supervisory review.

Those records can provide the evidence necessary to determine what occurred after a citizen contacted the Department, how an incident was classified, what actions officers took, what reports were generated and what supervisory review occurred.

That documentation also allows an accreditation assessment to examine something that cannot necessarily be determined simply by reading a policy manual:

Was the policy actually followed?

What Happens During Accreditation?

An agency seeking accreditation does considerable work before receiving the designation.

The Department must evaluate its policies against the applicable standards, address deficiencies, assemble documentation demonstrating compliance and prepare for assessment.

An outside assessment provides an additional level of review.

The assessment process is important because accreditation would have considerably less meaning if an agency simply certified its own compliance without independent examination.

Ultimately, WILEAG's governing body considers the assessment findings and recommendations in determining accreditation.

Why Should Residents Care?

For most residents, accreditation may sound like an administrative process occurring largely inside the Police Department.

Its implications are broader.

Police departments exercise substantial governmental authority. Residents rely on officers to respond to emergencies, investigate crimes, enforce laws, exercise discretion fairly and treat members of the community professionally.

Professional accreditation provides one mechanism for measuring whether the systems supporting those responsibilities meet established standards.

It can also provide an opportunity for a department to identify weaknesses, improve policies, strengthen documentation and establish more consistent practices.

Accreditation should therefore be viewed not simply as an award to obtain, but as an ongoing process of professional accountability and organizational improvement.

September 16 Listening Session Gives Residents an Opportunity to Participate

Franklin residents will have an opportunity to learn more and participate when the Department holds its Accreditation Community Listening Session on Wednesday, September 16, from 4 p.m. to 6 p.m.

The session will be held in the Franklin Municipal Court Room, 9455 W. Loomis Road.

Residents do not need to have had a negative interaction with police to have an interest in the process.

Questions about officer training, supervision, complaint procedures, community relations, records, transparency, use of discretion and departmental accountability all relate to the broader issue of what residents should expect from a professionally accredited law-enforcement agency.

The accreditation process ultimately presents Franklin with an opportunity to answer an important question:

Can the Franklin Police Department demonstrate—not only through its written policies, but through its actual practices and records—that it consistently meets the professional standards required for accreditation?

For Franklin residents, the September 16 listening session provides an opportunity to learn how the Department intends to answer that question.

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/