“Is Oak Creek Being Used? Supervisor Taylor’s Sudden Interest Faces Scrutiny”
by Dr. Richard Busalacchi
A Campaign Promise to Oak Creek
On the campaign trail and during his early tenure, Taylor emphasized his pledge to "finally serve the people of Oak Creek." He vowed to prioritize community development, improve park and public safety infrastructure, and ensure fair access to County resources for the city’s residents. However, despite this rhetoric, Taylor’s record since returning to office reveals a sharp disconnect between his public promises and his governing priorities.
Public critics and political observers have increasingly noted that Taylor spends the bulk of his public appearances, political alliances, and legislative energy focused on Franklin-based issues and personalities—including Franklin Mayor John Nelson and Alderwoman Michelle Eichmann—while leaving Oak Creek residents largely out of the picture. Even symbolic gestures—like attending city parades or partnering visibly with Oak Creek officials—have been conspicuously absent.
A Public Challenge Spurs a Defensive Response
On July 6, 2025, Franklin Community News (FCN), a local independent watchdog platform, publicly challenged Supervisor Taylor’s commitment to Oak Creek residents. In a post titled “Hey Oak Creek Residents,” FCN questioned Taylor’s absence from Oak Creek events and his apparent favoritism toward Franklin. The post read:
“Did you know your County Supervisor is Supervisor Steve F. Taylor? His district is the east side of Franklin and all of Oak Creek. It appears he is never in Oak Creek for ANYTHING and is ALWAYS in FRANKLIN appearing with Franklin Mayor Nelson and Alderwoman Eichmann… Is your Supervisor MIA?”
The post quickly gained traction across Oak Creek’s social media communities, with hundreds of residents weighing in. Many echoed the concern that Taylor appeared to represent Franklin more visibly than Oak Creek, noting the lack of photos, partnerships, or engagement with Oak Creek Mayor Dan Bukiewicz or the city’s alderpersons.
Rather than acknowledge the concern or clarify his priorities, Taylor’s response was swift and combative. Just three days later, on July 9, Taylor posted on his official Supervisor Facebook page that he had attended a groundbreaking ceremony for the Oak Creek Natatorium and a meeting with the Friends of Bender Park. FCN responded with a sarcastic congratulatory message, noting this was the first time in recent memory Taylor had appeared at a non-chamber Oak Creek event and challenging him to prove his connection to the community beyond one-off appearances.
The digital exchange ignited a broader public conversation about Taylor’s visibility, priorities, and sincerity in serving Oak Creek.
The Bender Park Maneuver: Politics Over Process
In an apparent attempt to counter public criticism and demonstrate his commitment to Oak Creek, Taylor seized on the long-delayed issue of dredging the Bender Park Boat Launch—a vital access point to Lake Michigan located within Oak Creek’s boundaries. For years, heavy sediment buildup had rendered the launch unusable, blocking public boating access and limiting emergency response capabilities. The Wisconsin DNR had approved permits in April 2025, and urgency was growing as yet another summer passed with the harbor closed.
On July 17, Taylor proudly announced that his resolution to fund emergency dredging had cleared the Finance Committee with a unanimous 7–0 vote. But what wasn’t immediately disclosed was Taylor’s procedural end-run: as Co-Chair of the Parks Committee—the appropriate body for initial review—Taylor bypassed his own committee entirely and sent the resolution directly to Finance, which he co-chairs. This raised eyebrows among supervisors and staff who viewed the move as a tactic to avoid debate, fact-finding, and scrutiny from subject-matter experts.
When the resolution came before the full County Board on July 24, it failed to gain the required two-thirds majority for a contingency fund transfer, even though it passed by a simple 11–6 majority. Critics argued that the rushed timeline, lack of Parks Committee vetting, and political posturing undermined the proposal's credibility and doomed it to fail.
Taylor responded with outrage, accusing six supervisors who voted no of “putting lives at risk” and promising to publicly name them and expose their “true motives.” He described the failed vote as “dangerous” and cast himself as the only leader willing to act, but many viewed the episode as yet another example of Taylor prioritizing headlines and retaliation over coalition-building and effective governance.
A Pattern of Retaliation Emerges
Taylor’s reaction to the failed Bender Park resolution was not an isolated incident—it echoed a pattern of behavior that has come to define his leadership style: retaliatory, theatrical, and divisive. Rather than build consensus or address policy concerns, Taylor frequently responds to dissent with public shaming, veiled threats, or personal attacks.
On July 25, 2025—just one day after the Board vote—Taylor took to his official Supervisor Facebook page, promising to “add [his] thoughts on each of the Supervisors who voted no and their true motives.” The post, widely seen as an intimidation tactic, drew immediate concern from ethics watchers and county insiders. While Taylor cast his statements as “transparency,” others questioned whether a public official threatening to expose colleagues over a procedural vote violated the Milwaukee County Ethics Code, which prohibits the use of public office to retaliate or intimidate.
Critics also pointed to a growing list of similar behaviors:
-
His ongoing feud with watchdog group Franklin Community News (FCN) has escalated from mockery to hostility, including online sparring and dismissive retorts that have drawn public attention—and scrutiny.
Together, these incidents suggest a governance style grounded less in policy than in political combat. Supervisors, constituents, and journalists alike have begun asking: Is this behavior effective leadership or retaliatory politics masquerading as public service?
Public Safety or Political Theater? The Bender Park Debate Revisited
Taylor’s framing of the Bender Park dredging resolution as a “matter of life and death” may have played well in headlines—but it raised deeper questions about the sincerity and timing of his proposal. For nearly two years, the boat launch had remained closed due to sediment buildup, with delays largely attributed to permitting, budget shortfalls, and administrative hurdles. Yet Taylor, who had ample opportunity to prioritize the project, only pushed the resolution forward after Franklin Community News publicly criticized his absence from Oak Creek affairs.
Notably, Taylor bypassed the Parks Committee—the body he co-chairs—and fast-tracked the resolution through the Finance Committee, which he co-chairs. Critics accused him of using the issue as political cover to appease constituents and silence detractors, not as a genuine act of long-term planning.
While Taylor insisted that dredging was essential for emergency access and boater safety, other supervisors argued that more transparency, public input, and interdepartmental coordination were needed. They questioned whether the emergency narrative was being exaggerated to justify rushed decision-making and avoid scrutiny.
Furthermore, some supervisors raised concern that the funds Taylor sought—over $341,000 from contingency and surplus accounts—might be more appropriately allocated in a more comprehensive capital plan. One supervisor reportedly described the move as “reactionary politics disguised as urgency.”
Ultimately, the measure’s failure at the full board wasn’t due to a lack of concern for public safety—but rather distrust in the process and Taylor’s motives.
Ethics and Accountability Under the Spotlight
Taylor’s conduct surrounding the Bender Park vote—and his broader behavior on the Board—has prompted renewed questions about compliance with Milwaukee County’s Ethics Code. Specifically, critics argue that Taylor’s threats to “call out” fellow supervisors for opposing his resolution could be construed as coercive or retaliatory, violating provisions that prohibit using one’s office to intimidate or harass others for political gain.
Milwaukee County’s Ethics Code (Chapter 9.05) states that public officials “shall not engage in official action substantially motivated by animus, retaliation, or personal benefit.” By publicly threatening to expose colleagues’ “true motives” after a procedural vote, Taylor walked a fine line between political speech and abuse of authority.
Legal observers and good governance advocates warn that such behavior erodes public trust and chills open debate. County Supervisors must be able to vote their conscience without fear of retaliation, particularly on fiscal and public works matters. The expectation of decorum and mutual respect is not merely ceremonial—it is foundational to transparent and ethical governance.
Some board members have reportedly expressed private concern that Taylor’s actions are creating a hostile work environment. Whether a formal ethics complaint is forthcoming remains to be seen, but the pattern of intimidation—particularly when paired with questionable procedural maneuvers—has elevated the issue to more than just political theater.
Final Five Voting: A Curious Contradiction
Just one month before the Bender Park controversy erupted, Supervisor Taylor publicly promoted an event championing Final Five Voting—a political reform initiative aimed at reducing polarization and encouraging cooperation across party lines. In a June 24 Facebook post, Taylor invited constituents to attend an educational event about how ranked-choice voting could “improve the current state of our politics in the United States.”
Taylor’s public support for Final Five Voting struck many as ironic. The core principles of the reform—civility, cross-partisan collaboration, and accountability—stand in sharp contrast to the very behavior he exhibited in the weeks that followed: bypassing committees, fast-tracking funding votes, and threatening to “call out” fellow Supervisors who disagreed with him.
Critics were quick to point out the contradiction between Taylor’s stated commitment to depolarizing local politics and his actual conduct on the County Board. While the Final Five Voting event was framed as a step toward more thoughtful governance, Taylor’s response to criticism and dissent has remained rooted in confrontation, deflection, and escalation.
The episode raised broader questions about political branding versus governing behavior: Was Taylor’s support of voting reform genuine, or was it a calculated effort to distance himself from an increasingly combative public image?
In either case, the juxtaposition added yet another layer of scrutiny to a leadership style that many believe has become more about control than consensus.
Oak Creek Still Waiting
Despite representing Oak Creek in name, Taylor’s tangible impact on the city remains limited. Since taking office in 2022, there have been no major infrastructure wins, no new park investments, and no significant engagement with Oak Creek’s elected leadership. While Taylor regularly appears alongside Franklin officials in public ceremonies and photo ops, Oak Creek’s Mayor Dan Bukiewicz and alderpersons are conspicuously absent from Taylor’s social media and legislative initiatives.
was finally focusing on Oak Creek. Instead, it exposed how little groundwork had been laid: no collaboration with the Parks Department, no strategic plan, no coordination with Oak Creek leaders. The resolution was rushed, procedurally questionable, and ultimately fell short of the two-thirds vote required for passage.
Residents are now left wondering: Was Taylor ever serious about prioritizing Oak Creek? Or was the “finally serve” pledge just a convenient campaign slogan?
In the absence of results, symbolic gestures matter. Oak Creek’s Independence Day parade came and went without any reported presence from Taylor. Community forums, school partnerships, and collaborative planning efforts have seen little to no engagement. For a city that makes up the majority of his district, Oak Creek has received disproportionately little attention.
And as regional issues like lakefront safety, transit access, and economic development grow more pressing, Oak Creek residents are demanding more than political posturing—they want leadership that shows up, listens, and delivers.
A Supervisor Out of Balance
Observers note that Taylor’s governing style increasingly revolves around:
-
Retaliation over resolution – Leveraging his position to punish dissenters rather than build coalitions.
-
Image over impact – Prioritizing public statements, Facebook posts, and political theater over policy outcomes.
-
Control over collaboration – Bypassing committees and procedural norms to fast-track his own agenda, often at the expense of transparency and trust.
Even within conservative and pro-reform circles, Taylor’s tactics have raised concern. Some allies have distanced themselves, while others remain quietly frustrated by his unpredictability and public tone. His tendency to escalate minor disputes into personal crusades has undermined his broader credibility and weakened his ability to form effective working relationships—even with those who share his political ideology.
In short, Taylor’s increasingly confrontational leadership style has alienated both colleagues and constituents. And as his public outbursts and ethical stumbles mount, questions persist about whether he is truly serving his district—or simply serving himself.
Conclusion: Promise Broken, Accountability Demanded
Steve Taylor’s 2022 campaign pledge to “finally serve” the residents of Oak Creek now rings hollow. What was marketed as a renewed era of leadership has become, in the eyes of many, a cautionary tale of performative politics, retaliatory governance, and missed opportunity.
The failure of the Bender Park resolution was not just about sediment or access—it was symbolic of a broader failure to prioritize constituents over conflict. Taylor’s bypassing of proper legislative process, public threats against colleagues, and disproportionate focus on Franklin affairs underscore a pattern that has left Oak Creek underrepresented and underserved.
As Milwaukee County faces pressing regional challenges—from environmental stewardship to fiscal management—its elected leaders must model integrity, collaboration, and transparency. When a supervisor uses their platform to pursue vendettas, intimidate peers, and engage in self-serving political theater, it undermines not only their own credibility but also public trust in government.
Oak Creek residents deserve more than empty slogans and dramatic Facebook posts. They deserve consistent advocacy, honest representation, and measurable results. Whether Taylor can pivot toward that vision—or whether voters will demand new leadership in 2026—remains to be seen.
But one thing is clear: the time for accountability is now.
