When County Supervisors Step Outside Their Role, Who Holds Them Accountable?
As Milwaukee County considers a new Code of Conduct, years of allegations involving retaliation, employment interference, personal attacks and political influence raise questions about what happens when supervisor conduct extends beyond the Board chamber.
By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
A proposed Milwaukee County Board Code of Conduct will go before the full County Board after a committee divided 2-2 over whether to recommend its adoption.
On September 22, Supervisors Patti Logsdon and Willie Johnson Jr. voted to recommend adoption of File 26-610. Supervisors Juan Miguel Martinez and Justin Bielinski voted no. Supervisor Sky Z. Capriolo was excused.
The motion to recommend adoption failed. Under the final committee record, the measure proceeds to the October 1 County Board meeting with “No Recommendation Due to a Tie Vote on the Motion to Recommend Adoption.”
The debate is about more than whether supervisors should be courteous to one another.
Milwaukee County already has standards addressing decorum during public meetings.
The larger question is:
What happens when alleged harassment, retaliation, personal attacks, employment interference or other alleged misuse of the influence associated with public office occurs outside the County Board meeting room?
And does Milwaukee County currently have an adequate process for examining such conduct?
County Employees Have Conduct Rules—Why Not Supervisors?
One of the clearest arguments raised during the September 22 debate over File 26-610 was the difference between the conduct and accountability systems governing Milwaukee County employees and those governing the elected supervisors who oversee County government.
Introducing her proposal, Supervisor Patti Logsdon made that comparison directly.
“I want you to note that all the other Milwaukee County employees currently abide by their code of conduct.”
Logsdon said the proposal grew out of concerns about how people appearing before the County Board have been treated.
“It takes courage to come to meetings and present their views and we need to treat them with respect,” Logsdon told the committee.
She said File 26-610 was intended to establish “some basic standards of code of conduct.”
Later in the discussion, Logsdon pushed back against the suggestion that the proposal was simply a response to a recent interpersonal disagreement among supervisors.
“This resolution was constructed because we have in the past had problems,” she said, explaining that she had personally heard from constituents who came to meetings and believed they had not been treated respectfully.
Her proposal also predates the current dispute. File 26-610 builds on Amendment 29 to Milwaukee County's 2026 Adopted Budget and the resulting File 26-326, under which the Office of Corporation Counsel and Department of Human Resources were directed to develop a County Board Code of Conduct. The County considered that earlier report in March 2026.
Johnson Raises the Same Question
Supervisor Willie Johnson Jr., who voted to recommend adoption, made the employee comparison even more explicitly during the committee discussion.
“There are codes of conduct as it relates to our employees. I do not see why we should not have a code of conduct.”
That gets to an important distinction in the debate.
County supervisors are not completely without rules. They are subject to Milwaukee County's Ethics Code and existing Board rules governing decorum. But File 26-610 would create a separate Board-specific complaint and enforcement process for categories of official conduct that do not necessarily fit within traditional ethics enforcement.
The proposed policy specifically identifies harassing, insulting, threatening or abusive conduct; personal attacks; unjustified verbal accusations; retaliation; repeated interruptions; and other conduct substantially interfering with fair and respectful County Board business.
And the proposal is not confined to behavior occurring at the supervisors' desks in the County Board chamber.
It would apply to supervisors acting in their official capacity through County Board and committee meetings, public hearings, official communications, County Board offices, telephone calls, voicemail, text messages, video conferences, social media, online platforms and other County Board business.
That distinction is particularly relevant to the broader issues examined in this article. Allegations involving retaliation, personal attacks, interference with employment, treatment of fellow supervisors or members of the public, and conduct through official communications may not necessarily fit within the same enforcement system that addresses conflicts of interest, misuse of office or other traditional ethics violations.
File 26-610 attempts to create a process for that space while expressly preserving the existing Ethics Code and other available remedies.
Where Should the Line Be Drawn?
There is another side to the issue.
County supervisors are independently elected policymakers, not ordinary County employees. Political disagreement, criticism of another elected official and constitutionally protected speech cannot automatically become misconduct simply because someone finds the speech offensive or contentious.
The proposed ordinance acknowledges that concern. Its introductory provisions expressly recognize the need to protect supervisors' ability to “debate, disagree, question, and advocate on matters of public policy.”
That leaves a significant policy question for the full County Board:
If Milwaukee County employees already operate under defined conduct standards and accountability procedures, what process should exist when allegations of harassment, retaliation, personal attacks or other inappropriate official conduct involve the elected supervisors who oversee County government?
And equally important: Where should Milwaukee County draw the line between legitimate political disagreement and conduct that warrants a formal accountability process?
Those questions—not simply the personalities involved in the current debate—are at the heart of File 26-610.
What File 26-610 Would Cover
The proposed Code applies to supervisors acting in their official capacities.
Its scope includes County Board and committee meetings, public hearings, official communications, County Board offices, telephone calls, voicemail, text messages, video conferences, social media, online platforms and other County Board business.
The proposed conduct standards include harassing, insulting, threatening, abusive, retaliatory or disruptive conduct; personal attacks; unjustified accusations; repeated failure to follow a chairperson’s ruling; and conduct substantially interfering with fair and orderly County Board business.
The proposal expressly states that it does not replace the Milwaukee County Ethics Code or other remedies available under law.
That distinction is central to the debate.
A Member of the Public Could Bring Information Forward
Only a County supervisor could formally file a complaint under the proposed policy.
But the filing supervisor would not have to personally experience or witness the alleged conduct.
The policy expressly allows a supervisor to file based on “information provided by another person.”
A member of the public, County employee, County officer or another person could therefore provide information to a supervisor. The supervisor would decide whether to sign and file a formal complaint.
The policy describes such an individual as an “affected person.”
There is no requirement in the proposed policy that an affected person live in the filing supervisor’s district.
Complaints generally must be filed within 90 days of the alleged conduct or within 90 days after the filing supervisor reasonably became aware of it.
Anonymous complaints would not be accepted.
What Happens After a Complaint Is Filed?
The proposal does considerably more than create a complaint form.
It establishes preliminary review, notice to the respondent supervisor, opportunities for informal resolution and eventual committee consideration.
A complaint could be dismissed, resolved through guidance, training, mediation, apology or agreed corrective action, or referred to the Ethics Board, Corporation Counsel, Human Resources, law enforcement or another appropriate authority.
Before disciplinary action could be recommended, the committee would have to determine that the conduct was established by a preponderance of the evidence.
Possible actions include public reprimand, public censure, referral to another authority and recommendations involving committee assignments or leadership positions.
The proposal also contains protections for political speech.
Disagreement with another supervisor’s vote, policy position, legislative judgment or political viewpoint would not, standing alone, constitute misconduct.
This Proposal Did Not Begin With What Vincent Alleges as a Dispute
That history is particularly important because Vincent raised the proposal’s origins during the September 22 committee meeting.
Vincent said:
“The timing and circumstances around this proposal create the appearance that it arose from a conflict between individual supervisors. If that is the case, I do not believe an interpersonal dispute between two elected officials should come before this board.”
She added:
“Legislation should address demonstrated institutional problems, not individual relationships or disagreements.”
The legislative record shows the Code initiative predates the present debate.
File 26-610 expressly states that File 26-326 was created in response to Amendment 29 to the 2026 Adopted Budget, directing the Office of Corporation Counsel and Department of Human Resources to develop a Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors Code of Conduct policy.
That report came before the Judiciary, Law Enforcement and General Services Committee in March 2026.
File 26-610 states that it “builds on File No. 26-326” by placing the conduct principles into County ordinance and establishing an enforcement process, it establishes that the concept did not originate with the September dispute between Vincent and Logsdon. Vincent appeared to be spinning and deflecting the facts in her comments. In that this is NOT about a personal conflict between two Supervisors, but a long history of how some County Supervisors harass, insult, threaten or provide abusive conduct; personal attacks; unjustified verbal accusations; retaliation; repeated interruptions; and other conduct toward County residents, staff and other elected officials.
Logsdon’s Affidavit Predates the Code Debate
There is another important date.
The affidavit Vincent publicly criticized on September 22 was signed by Logsdon in August 2024.
That was long before File 26-610 and before the 2026 budget process that produced the earlier Code initiative.
The Historical Record Predates the Current Dispute
Concerns involving Taylor's conduct did not begin with the present dispute or File 26-610.
In 2018, then-Milwaukee County Supervisor Deanna Alexander publicly accused Taylor of bullying, employment interference and inappropriate conduct.
Her public allegations included accounts involving former Supervisor Dan Sebring and community members Sally Ann Chadwick, Mary Draginis, Gianfranco Zingales, Joy Draginis-Zingales and Bryan Maersch.
The individuals described different circumstances, and their statements should not collectively be treated as proof of misconduct.
Their relevance is chronological: allegations concerning Taylor's interactions with other elected officials and community members existed years before the present County Board debate.
Alexander Later Sued Taylor
Milwaukee County Supervisor Deanna Alexander's dispute with Steve Taylor extended beyond County Board politics and, according to Alexander's federal lawsuit, into her employment with the State of Wisconsin.
Alexander alleged that after political disagreements with Taylor—and after she supported Patti Logsdon in the 2018 County Board election—Taylor participated with state officials in a campaign of retaliation against her.
The consequences alleged by Alexander were substantial: she lost her state job and went to federal court alleging that Taylor and state officials were responsible for unlawful political retaliation that contributed to her termination.
Alexander sued the Wisconsin Department of Children and Families and state officials, while also naming Taylor as a defendant. Her federal complaint asserted civil-rights and related claims arising from what she alleged was retaliation tied to her political speech, associations and disagreements with Taylor. The federal docket confirms that Taylor was individually named as a defendant and moved to dismiss the claims against him.
The distinction is important. Alexander did not merely accuse Taylor of treating her poorly as a fellow elected official. She alleged that his political conflict with her crossed into her outside employment and became part of the circumstances that resulted in her losing her job.
Those remained Alexander's allegations. Taylor contested them, and the litigation did not result in a judicial finding that Taylor caused Alexander's termination or unlawfully interfered with her employment.
On April 21, 2020, Alexander and Taylor ultimately stipulated to dismissal of the claims against Taylor with prejudice and without costs to either party.
Former Milwaukee County Supervisor Dan Sebring recently told FCN that he recalls Alexander resolving her claims against Taylor outside court for an undisclosed amount and signing a nondisclosure agreement. That is Sebring's recollection. The publicly available federal court record reviewed by FCN does not independently disclose a settlement payment, settlement agreement or confidentiality provision.
For the current Code of Conduct debate, Alexander's allegations are relevant because they present an earlier example of precisely the broader question now confronting the County Board: what mechanism exists when a supervisor alleges that conflict or retaliation involving another supervisor extends beyond the County Board chamber and into employment or other aspects of public life?
Maersch Alleged Taylor Went After His Employment
One earlier allegation is particularly relevant to the current conduct discussion.
Franklin resident Bryan Maersch alleged Taylor contacted Maersch's employer at then NML in an effort to have him fired because of political blogs critical of Taylor.
Maersch also alleged Taylor contacted Franklin alderpersons concerning renewal of Maersch's appointment to a City commission.
Those were Maersch's allegations—not judicial findings.
But they present an institutional question:
If an elected supervisor used the influence associated with public office to pressure a critic's employer because of political speech, what County process would address it?
Years Later, Employment Again Appears in Logsdon's Affidavit
That history provides context for a statement appearing years later in Logsdon's sworn affidavit.
Logsdon alleged Vincent told her Taylor had connections at Milwaukee Area Technical College and intended to let people there know what was occurring concerning Busalacchi.
The affidavit does not establish that Taylor actually contacted MATC.
It does not establish that Taylor caused an employment consequence.
And similarity to Maersch's or Alexander's earlier allegation does not prove either allegation.
But the similarity identifies a factual question capable of investigation:
Did Taylor contact MATC concerning Busalacchi, and if so, what was communicated and in what capacity?
Another Earlier Account Involved Taylor and the Criminal-Justice System
An April 24, 2019 email from Pete Melchior provides another historical account.
Melchior described Taylor's alleged involvement during a contentious custody dispute several years earlier.
According to Melchior, Taylor became involved while serving as a County supervisor and contacted then-Milwaukee County District Attorney John Chisholm.
Melchior alleged Taylor, Chisholm and others later met at the Umbrella Bar concerning the matter and that Taylor continued communicating about it.
Melchior further alleged Taylor sought involvement from then-Sheriff's Inspector Richard Schmidt.
Those were Melchior's allegations.
Years before the present controversy, another person alleged that Taylor used relationships with criminal-justice officials while becoming involved in someone else's legal dispute.
Concerns From Fellow Supervisors Predate the Current Debate
The concerns raised by Logsdon are not limited to recent disputes.
In March 2018—more than eight years before File 26-610—then-Milwaukee County Supervisor Dan Sebring publicly described his own concerns about fellow Supervisor Steve Taylor's conduct.
Sebring stated:
“On more than one occasion he has attempted to intimidate me too.”
Sebring also specifically pointed to Taylor's “demeanor and personal conduct on the board floor, in committee, and in private,” which Sebring characterized as inappropriate for an elected official. The statement appeared in a March 30, 2018 release issued by then-Supervisor Deanna Alexander containing accounts from several elected officials and residents concerning Taylor.
Those were Sebring's allegations and opinions, not findings by a court, the Ethics Board or another adjudicative body.
But the timing and subject matter provide historical context for the current debate. Sebring was describing alleged supervisor-to-supervisor conduct on the Board floor, in committee and outside formal meetings years before the present Code of Conduct proposal.
His account also provides context for Logsdon's statement during the September 22, 2026 committee hearing:
“This resolution was constructed because we have in the past had problems.”
Sebring is not the only former supervisor whose allegations predate File 26-610. As discussed elsewhere in this article, former Supervisor Deanna Alexander later alleged in federal court that political conflict with Taylor extended beyond County Board disagreements and into circumstances surrounding her state employment. Those allegations were contested and did not result in a judicial finding that Taylor caused Alexander's termination.
Taken together, the historical accounts establish that concerns about supervisor-to-supervisor conduct were being publicly raised years before the current dispute between Logsdon and Supervisor Kathleen Vincent and years before File 26-610 was introduced. They do not establish that the allegations were true or that the proposed Code would have produced a particular outcome had it existed at the time.
Sebring's Recent Account Adds to His 2018 Statements
Former Milwaukee County Supervisor Dan Sebring recently provided FCN with additional recollections about his interactions with Steve Taylor.
Sebring told FCN:
“He once bragged to me about his ability to manipulate people through intimidation and how some politician he knew in Minneapolis ‘taught him all the tricks.’”
Sebring also told FCN that Taylor:
“continually harassed Supervisor Logsdon since she unseated him.”
Those are Sebring's recollections and characterizations, and FCN has not independently verified the conversations or conduct underlying those statements.
They are significant historically, however, because Sebring was expressing concerns about Taylor's conduct long before the current debate over File 26-610.
In March 2018, while serving on the Milwaukee County Board, Sebring publicly stated:
“On more than one occasion he has attempted to intimidate me too.”
Sebring also criticized Taylor's “demeanor and personal conduct on the board floor, in committee, and in private,” which he characterized as inappropriate for a public officeholder. That statement was published March 30, 2018, as part of a release issued by then-Supervisor Deanna Alexander.
The combination is noteworthy for the current Code of Conduct discussion. Sebring's 2018 statement is a contemporaneous public record; his additional comments are recent recollections provided directly to FCN. Neither constitutes a formal finding against Taylor, but both describe the type of alleged supervisor-to-supervisor intimidation and conduct that is now part of the debate surrounding File 26-610.
Vincent Challenges Logsdon's Credibility
Against that historical background, Vincent directly challenged Logsdon during the September 22 Code-of-Conduct debate.
Vincent told the committee:
“Based on my own experience with Supervisor Logsdon, including a publicly filed affidavit that I believe contains inaccurate and misleading information, I have lost trust in her judgment on issues involving conduct and accountability.”
Vincent did not identify during those remarks which particular statements she believes are inaccurate or misleading. Vincent was effectively working to cover her tracks with false and misleading information that she and Taylor have been putting out to other Supervisors and county staff about Logsdon and the affidavit. All in an effort to conceal their alleged involvement, lies, and deception.
That leaves an evidentiary question:
Which statements does Vincent & (Taylor) dispute, and what evidence supports or contradicts them?
What Logsdon Put Under Oath
Logsdon's August 2024 affidavit describes conversations she says she had with Vincent involving Taylor, prosecutors and other public officials.
The Logsdon affidavit reaffirms what has been provided on the record by other individuals that Vincent shared the information with.
Among the statements described by Logsdon are Vincent's alleged comments concerning Taylor and MATC. Which are corroborated by public records.
Logsdon also said Vincent told her Taylor had spoken with then-District Attorney John Chisholm.
According to Logsdon, Vincent later told her Taylor went to meet with Chisholm.
Those statements are significant because Logsdon signed her name to them under oath.
But the affidavit raises another question that is particularly relevant to the current Code of Conduct debate:
Why were two Milwaukee County supervisors allegedly involving themselves in a matter that, on its face, had no apparent connection to their responsibilities as County supervisors?
Logsdon's affidavit describes statements she says Supervisor Kathleen Vincent made concerning the involvement of Supervisor Steve Taylor, District Attorney John Chisholm and an assistant district attorney in matters involving Busalacchi. Whatever conclusions ultimately are drawn about the underlying events, the account raises a separate governmental question: What County purpose, if any, was being served by the supervisors' involvement?
Neither Taylor nor Vincent was acting as Busalacchi's County supervisor, and the matters described in the affidavit did not concern Milwaukee County legislation, a County program or an issue then pending before the County Board.
That distinction matters to the debate over File 26-610. The issue is not simply whether elected officials are permitted to become involved in matters outside their formal duties—they plainly have private lives and retain the same rights as other citizens. The more relevant questions are whether they were acting personally or using the access, relationships, influence or resources associated with their elected positions; why they became involved; and whether any governmental authority was contacted or influenced because of that involvement.
Those questions do not establish misconduct by either supervisor. They do, however, illustrate a broader issue confronting the County Board as it considers a Code of Conduct: Where should accountability begin and end when the conduct of an elected supervisor extends beyond the Board chamber and into matters that have no apparent connection to the supervisor's official responsibilities?
Barbian Provides a Separate Account
Franklin Community News separately confirmed with Greendale Village Trustee Ron Barbian that he recalls conversations with Vincent involving some of the same individuals and subjects described by Logsdon.
Barbian recalls discussions involving an assistant district attorney, Taylor and Chisholm.
Barbian's account to FCN provides a separate account that Vincent discussed similar subjects with another elected official.
Later public records obtained by FCN identify the assistant district attorney involved in the broader matter as ADA Potter.
The Record Also Raises Questions About Contact With Judge Dugan
Logsdon's affidavit describes what Supervisor Kathleen Vincent allegedly told her concerning then-Milwaukee County Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan while Dugan was presiding over Busalacchi's criminal case.
But an important part of Logsdon's account begins before the alleged conversation with Dugan.
According to Logsdon's affidavit, in August 2024 she learned that the Milwaukee County legislative assistant shared by Logsdon, Vincent and Supervisor Steve Taylor was in Busalacchi's courtroom taking notes.
Logsdon then described a conversation in which Vincent allegedly told her that she had visited Dugan's courtroom and later went to lunch with the judge.
According to Logsdon, Vincent described asking Dugan a hypothetical question concerning whether a County legislative assistant could attend a supervisor's personal court hearing.
That question takes on greater significance in light of the aide's reported presence in Busalacchi's courtroom.
According to Logsdon, once Vincent identified Busalacchi, Dugan said she could not discuss the matter because she was the judge presiding over his case.
That distinction is important. According to Logsdon's own account, Dugan declined to discuss Busalacchi's case once it was identified.
The account nevertheless raises questions separate from anything Dugan did:
Why was a taxpayer-funded County legislative aide attending and taking notes at a court proceeding involving a matter that had no apparent connection to County Board business? Who requested the aide's attendance? What County purpose, if any, did it serve? And why was Vincent asking a judge whether such attendance was permissible?
Those questions became more significant when Milwaukee County Clerk George Christenson subsequently addressed the distinction between legislative work and supervisors' private affairs. An August 2024 memorandum attributed to Christenson stated:
“Legislative aides do not accommodate requests to the personal affairs of County Supervisors.”
Separate ethics complaints subsequently alleged that Vincent and Taylor directed their shared legislative aide to attend multiple Busalacchi court hearings. Those allegations should be distinguished from Logsdon's affidavit: Logsdon's sworn account establishes what she says she observed, learned and was told; it does not itself establish who directed the aide to attend or how many appearances occurred.
A later filing by Busalacchi also alleges a second contact involving Vincent and Dugan.
That leaves several factual questions:
How many contacts occurred between Vincent and Dugan? What was discussed? Who directed the legislative aide to attend the court proceedings? And in what capacity was a County supervisor approaching the judge presiding over a pending criminal case involving a matter with no apparent connection to County Board business?
Those questions are particularly relevant to the debate over File 26-610 because they concern the boundary between a supervisor's official position, taxpayer-funded County staff and activities undertaken outside ordinary County Board business.
Logsdon said Vincent described asking Dugan a hypothetical question concerning whether a County legislative assistant could attend a supervisor's personal court hearing.
According to Logsdon, once Vincent identified Busalacchi, Dugan said she could not discuss the matter because she was the presiding judge.
That distinction is significant.
According to Logsdon's own account, Dugan declined to discuss the case once it was identified.
A later filing by Busalacchi alleges a second contact involving Vincent and Dugan.
It presents a factual question:
How many contacts occurred, what was discussed, and in what capacity was a County supervisor (Vincent) approaching the judge presiding over a pending criminal case?
The Christie Text Adds Another Independent Account
Another record involves Franklin Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann, Taylor and Chisholm.
In a contemporaneous text, Franklin resident Marcus Christie recounted something he said Eichmann told him at St. Martin's Fair.
Christie wrote that Eichmann had been “bragging” about how Taylor “worked it out (timed it with Chisholm)” so Busalacchi would be incarcerated over Christmas.
The evidentiary distinction is critical.
The text establishes what Christie recorded Eichmann as saying.
The statement exists alongside separately sourced accounts involving Taylor and Chisholm: Logsdon's sworn recollection, Barbian's separate recollection and the earlier Melchior allegations.
Together they identify a factual question:
What communications actually occurred between Taylor and prosecutors, when did they occur, and what were they about?
Nelson's Own Statement Establishes His Involvement
Franklin Mayor John Nelson has separately acknowledged involvement in the underlying legal controversy.
During a recorded Waterford investigation interview, Nelson acknowledged providing assistance in connection with obtaining the restraining order that later became central to related proceedings.
It establishes that Franklin's mayor became personally involved in a private legal matter that later intersected with law enforcement, criminal proceedings and political disputes involving Franklin officials.
Nelson Later Requested Greendale Police Records
There is also a documentary record of Nelson personally seeking law-enforcement information concerning Busalacchi.
On May 1, 2023—14 days before the May 15 injunction hearing—Nelson submitted a written public-records request to the Greendale Police Department seeking records concerning Busalacchi dating back to January 1, 2022. He requested that the records be provided by May 7.
The timing is significant to the chronology. Nelson's request preceded the May 15, 2023 injunction hearing.
A public-records request is lawful, and the request itself establishes no misconduct or improper purpose. But when considered alongside the broader record concerning Nelson's involvement, it presents factual questions about why Franklin's mayor was seeking another municipality's police records concerning Busalacchi two weeks before the injunction hearing, in what capacity he made the request, how the resulting information was used, and whether it was shared with anyone involved in the proceedings.
But when considered with Nelson's acknowledged earlier involvement, it raises factual questions concerning the continuing nature of his role:
Why was Franklin's mayor personally gathering another municipality's police records concerning Busalacchi?
Was he acting personally or in his governmental capacity?
What was the intended use of those records?
Those questions can be asked without reaching a conclusion about Nelson's motives.
What Taylor Later Learned May Also Matter
The chronology becomes particularly important because information obtained by Franklin Community News indicates Taylor subsequently received information challenging the factual understanding upon which he previously had been operating.
According to information provided to FCN, Taylor approached Greendale Village President Jason Cyborowski on January 9, 2025, during a celebration-of-life reception for Al Emmons at the Eleanor Room in Greendale.
Cyborowski had knowledge of circumstances relevant to the controversy.
According to the account provided to FCN, Taylor questioned Cyborowski about those circumstances.
Cyborowski told Taylor, in substance, that material information Taylor previously had been given concerning Busalacchi and circumstances underlying the controversy was not accurate and that Busalacchi's account of material events was consistent with what Cyborowski knew.
The significance is Taylor allegedly was directly informed by another elected official in January 2025 that material information upon which Taylor apparently had relied was inaccurate.
Zimmerman Later Provided Taylor Additional Information
According to information separately provided to FCN, that was not the only occasion on which Taylor subsequently received information challenging his earlier understanding.
According to the account provided to FCN, ROC Ventures CEO Mike Zimmerman communicated additional information to Taylor in early 2026 that likewise contradicted material information Taylor previously had received concerning circumstances underlying the controversy.
The Cyborowski and Zimmerman accounts therefore create an important alleged chronology:
January 9, 2025 — Cyborowski allegedly told Taylor that material information Taylor previously had received was inaccurate and that Busalacchi's account was consistent with information known to Cyborowski.
Early 2026 — Zimmerman allegedly provided Taylor additional information that again challenged Taylor's earlier understanding.
Neither account establishes that Taylor knowingly relied on inaccurate information when he originally became involved.
Taylor may initially have believed the information provided to him was accurate.
But it creates a different question concerning Taylor's conduct after January 2025 and after receiving additional information in 2026.
What information did Taylor originally rely upon?
What did Cyborowski tell him that challenged that understanding?
What additional information did Zimmerman later provide?
Did Taylor communicate corrected or contrary information to public officials with whom he previously had discussed the matter?
And did Taylor continue taking actions involving Busalacchi after receiving information contradicting his earlier understanding?
What the accounts potentially establish is:
Taylor allegedly received information from two separate sources, at different times, materially challenging what he previously understood.
That makes the chronology of his subsequent actions a legitimate subject for examination.
Taylor's Own Legal History Is Also Part of the Public Record
Taylor has his own documented history involving a harassment injunction and an obstruction conviction.
The events occurred in La Crosse in 1999 and 2000.
Public reporting based on the underlying records states that Taylor was accused of prohibited contact while subject to a harassment injunction.
The harassment-order matter was handled through a deferred-prosecution arrangement.
A separate investigation developed after an acquaintance initially claimed responsibility for the contact and subsequently told investigators Taylor had encouraged him to do so.
Taylor denied the allegation. "POOKIE"
The obstruction case proceeded to trial.
A jury convicted Taylor of misdemeanor obstruction of an officer in 2000.
The historical conviction is a documented fact.
The Allegations Eventually Became Part of a John Doe Proceeding
In September 2025, Busalacchi filed a Milwaukee County John Doe petition containing allegations involving several public officials, including Supervisors Steve Taylor and Kathleen Vincent.
Among the subjects presented were alleged communications involving elected officials and prosecutors, employment-related allegations, public records and other governmental activity.
Those remain allegations.
A John Doe filing is not a finding of criminal wrongdoing, and no court has made findings establishing the allegations contained in the petition.
On March 31, 2026, the John Doe case was marked “closed” in CCAP. But that designation did not mean that the allegations had been adjudicated or rejected.
The same day, Milwaukee County District Attorney Kent Lovern informed the court that his office had formally requested that the Wisconsin Department of Justice assume responsibility for handling the matter. The Chief Judge's office likewise confirmed that request and said the court would provide an update after hearing from DOJ.
An Early Celebration?
Following the CCAP closure, Taylor and Vincent were photographed together at Ray and Dot's in Greendale. FCN subsequently published the photograph in its April 29 report and questioned whether the two supervisors were “celebrating a little early” after the court docket had been marked closed. Taylor had also made social-media references to the John Doe matter that FCN interpreted at the time as suggesting the case had been resolved.
The photograph itself does not establish why Taylor and Vincent were together at Ray and Dot's or prove that they were celebrating the John Doe's apparent closure. But the timing became noteworthy because the “closed” designation did not represent a decision clearing anyone named in the petition.
Instead, official correspondence showed that the District Attorney had asked DOJ to assume responsibility for the matter.
And the story did not end there.
As of September 24, 2026, the Milwaukee County Chief Judge's office has confirmed to Franklin Community News that the John Doe matter remains unresolved.
Thus, whatever Taylor or Vincent may have understood about the CCAP designation at the time, there has been no adjudication on the merits establishing that the allegations in the John Doe petition were either true or false.
Related Cases Remain Under Appellate Review
Related litigation also remains subject to appellate review.
The underlying harassment-injunction proceeding is Milwaukee County Circuit Court Case No. 2023CV003119, with the related appellate proceeding identified as Wisconsin Court of Appeals Case No. 2026AP001602. The underlying circuit-court case is independently identified in a federal court order discussing the litigation.
Separately, the criminal conviction arising from an alleged violation of the injunction is State of Wisconsin v. Richard Alan Busalacchi, Milwaukee County Circuit Court Case No. 2024CM001419. The related criminal appeal is Wisconsin Court of Appeals Case No. 2026AP001341-CR. The underlying criminal case is also identified in the federal court record.
Readers can search the cases through the Wisconsin Court System Case Search using the following case numbers:
2023CV003119 — harassment-injunction proceeding
2026AP001602 — appeal related to the injunction proceeding
2024CM001419 — criminal conviction arising from the alleged injunction violation
2026AP001341-CR — criminal appeal
An appeal does not establish that the lower court committed error. Nor does the filing of an appeal indicate how an appellate court will rule.
It establishes that judicial review of the challenged decisions remains unfinished.
A Current Taylor Ethics Complaint Illustrates the Jurisdictional Difference
A separate pending Milwaukee County ethics matter involving Taylor illustrates why the distinction between an Ethics Code and a Code of Conduct matters.
A verified complaint submitted by Busalacchi and Franklin resident Kevin Fischer concerning Taylor's Supervisor-branded Facebook presence raises questions about the relationship among the government-facing page, County office, County staff or resources, campaign activity and political fundraising.
A supplemental filing was also submitted.
The significance for File 26-610 is institutional.
An Ethics Board can consider matters within its statutory and ordinance-based jurisdiction.
File 26-610 would create a separate mechanism for allegations involving harassment, retaliation, threats, personal attacks and other conduct connected to official County Board activity.
There may be overlap.
But the jurisdictions are not identical.
Vincent's September 22 Appearance Raises a Separate Transparency Question
Vincent is also employed as a fifth-grade teacher at LakeView K-8 Academy in the Kenosha Unified School District. The LakeView school calendar indicated it was a regularly scheduled day of school and the elementary school time is - Elementary: 8:00 a.m. – 3:18 p.m.
The September 22 County committee meeting began at 9:30 a.m.
The official minutes identify Vincent as appearing virtually.
That occurred during the regular school day.
That fact alone does not establish that Vincent violated a KUSD policy.
She could have been on approved leave, preparation time, otherwise excused from classroom duties or participating under another authorized arrangement.
Earlier personnel-related allegations have also questioned whether Vincent conducted governmental activities during compensated school time.
Those allegations likewise are not findings.
The appropriate inquiry is factual:
What was Vincent's assigned employment status at approximately 9:30 a.m. September 22, and was her participation in County business consistent with KUSD rules and any approved leave or coverage arrangement?
The Accountability Gap Is the Issue
Consider a hypothetical allegation that ultimately could be proven:
A County supervisor uses political relationships to pressure a critic's employer because the critic published unfavorable political speech.
Where does that complaint go?
A meeting chair cannot address it because it occurred outside a meeting.
If no County money or staff were involved, traditional ethics provisions might not address precisely the same conduct.
Or consider an allegation that a supervisor used relationships with prosecutors or other governmental officials in connection with an outside legal matter.
What County conduct standard applies?
What about retaliation against another supervisor?
Harassment through official communications?
Repeated personal attacks through an official social-media presence?
Pressure directed at a community member because of political criticism?
Those are the types of institutional questions raised by File 26-610.
They are separate from whether any particular historical allegation is ultimately proven.
The Question Before the County Board
File 26-610 now heads to the full Milwaukee County Board following the September 22 committee tie.
The Board does not have to determine whether every historical allegation discussed in this article is true in order to consider the policy questions presented by the proposed Code.
Those questions include:
What conduct currently falls outside existing ethics and meeting rules?
Should County supervisors be subject to an enforceable conduct standard when acting in their official capacities outside formal meetings?
Does File 26-610 adequately protect political disagreement and constitutionally protected speech?
Does its complaint process provide sufficient fairness and due process to an accused supervisor?
How should allegations of retaliation, employment interference, harassment, personal attacks or misuse of official influence be examined?
And when public officials interact with employers, prosecutors, judges, law enforcement or other governmental officials in matters involving members of the public:
What standards should govern the use of the influence that accompanies elected office?
Those questions extend beyond any dispute between two supervisors.
The answers should come from the evidence—and from clearly defined standards applied equally to everyone.
Make Your Voice Heard Before the County Board Votes
File 26-610 now goes before the full Milwaukee County Board.
That means residents have an opportunity to contact their elected County supervisor before the Board considers whether to adopt, reject or amend the proposed County Board Code of Conduct.
The proposal raises questions that affect more than one supervisor or one political dispute.
Should supervisors be subject to an enforceable conduct standard addressing harassment, retaliation, threats, personal attacks and other conduct connected to their official responsibilities?
Should that standard extend beyond County Board meetings to official communications, telephone calls, text messages, social media and other County Board business?
Does the proposed complaint process provide adequate protection for legitimate political disagreement and constitutionally protected speech?
Does it provide sufficient due process for a supervisor accused of misconduct?
And should Milwaukee County have a process for examining alleged official misconduct that may fall outside the traditional jurisdiction of the Ethics Board or the authority of a meeting chair?
Residents can review the proposal, decide where they stand and tell their supervisor whether they believe File 26-610 should be adopted, rejected or amended—and why.
Contact Your Milwaukee County Supervisor
Milwaukee County's current 2026–2028 Board consists of 18 supervisors. The following contact information is from Milwaukee County's official Board and legislative records.
DISTRICT 1 — ANNE O'CONNOR
Phone: 414-278-4280
Email: Anne.O'Connor@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 2 — WILLIE JOHNSON JR.
Phone: 414-278-4233
Email: willie.johnson@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 3 — SHELDON A. WASSERMAN
Phone: 414-278-4237
Email: Sheldon.Wasserman@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 4 — JACK ECKBLAD
Phone: 414-278-4232
Email: jack.eckblad@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 5 — LEEVAN D. ROUNDTREE JR.
Phone: 414-278-4278
Email: Leevan.Roundtree@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 6 — SHAWN ROLLAND
Phone: 414-278-4273
Email: Shawn.Rolland@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 7 — FELESIA A. MARTIN
Phone: 414-278-4241
Email: felesia.martin@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 8 — STEVEN SHEA, FIRST VICE-CHAIR
Phone: 414-278-4231
Email: steven.shea@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 9 — PATTI LOGSDON
Phone: 414-278-4267
Email: patti.logsdon@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 10 — MARCELIA NICHOLSON-BOVELL, COUNTY BOARD CHAIRWOMAN
Phone: 414-278-4261
Email: Marcelia.Nicholson@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 11 — KATHLEEN VINCENT
Phone: 414-278-4253
Email: kathleen.vincent@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 12 — JUAN MIGUEL MARTINEZ
Phone: 414-278-4269
Email: juanmiguel.martinez@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 13 — PRISCILLA E. COGGS-JONES, SECOND VICE-CHAIR
Phone: 414-278-4265
Email: priscilla.coggsjones@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 14 — CAROLINE GÓMEZ-TOM
Phone: 414-278-4252
Email: caroline.gomez-tom@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 15 — SKY Z. CAPRIOLO
Phone: 414-278-4255
Email: sky.capriolo@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 16 — JUSTIN BIELINSKI
Phone: 414-278-4247
Email: Justin.Bielinski@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 17 — STEVE F. TAYLOR
Phone: 414-278-4263
Email: steve.taylor@milwaukeecountywi.gov
DISTRICT 18 — DEANNA ALEXANDER
Phone: 414-278-4259
Email: deanna.alexander@milwaukeecountywi.gov
Not Sure Who Represents You?
Milwaukee County provides a Find Your Supervisor service that allows residents to enter their home address and identify their County supervisory district.
Residents may also contact the County Board's central office:
Milwaukee County Board of Supervisors
Milwaukee County Courthouse, Room 201
901 N. 9th Street
Milwaukee, WI 53233
414-278-4222
What Should You Tell Your Supervisor?
Your message does not have to be lengthy.
Identify yourself as a Milwaukee County resident, reference File 26-610 — County Board Code of Conduct, state whether you believe the proposal should be adopted, rejected or amended, and explain the principal reason for your position.
Residents who favor adoption might focus on whether the County needs an enforceable process for alleged harassment, retaliation, personal attacks or other official conduct occurring outside formal meetings.
Residents who oppose the proposal might focus on concerns about subjective conduct standards, political complaints, protected speech or whether existing County mechanisms are sufficient.
Residents who believe the proposal should be amended can identify the specific provisions they believe should be strengthened, narrowed or otherwise changed.
Whatever your position:
Read the proposal. Review the evidence. Contact your County supervisor. Tell them where you stand on File 26-610—and why.
