By Dr. Richard A. Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
Yet surviving police records obtained by FCN, (a 55 page police report) court-related documents, and contemporaneous newspaper accounts tell a far more complicated story.
What began in 1999 as a harassment injunction investigation involving Taylor and his former girlfriend ultimately evolved into allegations that another individual was encouraged to take responsibility for conduct under investigation. The matter later resulted in an obstruction conviction that became a public issue during Taylor's political career.
Today, much of the original court file no longer appears to be available due to the age of the case. However, the surviving La Crosse Police Department investigative file, contemporaneous reporting from the La Crosse Tribune, and later reporting by the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel provide a detailed record of what occurred.
The Harassment Injunction
The case began after Taylor's former girlfriend, Jill Kroner, obtained a harassment injunction following the end of their relationship.
The injunction prohibited Taylor from contacting Kroner directly or indirectly. Court documents contained in the police file specifically ordered:
"No contact with petitioner Jill Kroner directly or through a third person."
The injunction remained in effect until July 7, 1999.
The One-Word Voicemail
On June 18, 1999, Kroner returned home and discovered a message on her family's answering machine.
In a written statement provided to police, Kroner described what happened.
"I came home to my parents' home, I picked up the phone to call my boyfriend to tell him I got home safely and found that there was a message on our voice mail system."
Kroner immediately believed she knew who left the message.
"The message sounded like a person whom I have had many arguments with for the past two years, Steve Taylor."
According to Kroner, the message contained only a single word:
"The message consisted of one word only, 'Poo-Kie,' which was a nickname he called me when we were together."
Kroner also told police:
"I have had many problems with Mr. Taylor during the past two years, especially around this time of year."
Because the injunction prohibited contact, police opened a criminal investigation.
The Arrest
Investigators interviewed Kroner, family members, and individuals who had spent time with Taylor during the evening in question.
Police examined Taylor's whereabouts and sought to determine whether he had access to a telephone at the time the call was made.
After reviewing witness statements and the injunction order, officers concluded there was probable cause that the injunction had been violated.
Taylor was arrested on June 19, 1999.
At the time, Taylor denied making the call.
Had the case ended there, it would likely have remained a relatively minor misdemeanor matter.
Instead, investigators soon began uncovering information that dramatically changed the direction of the case.
Enter Brian See
As investigators continued their review, another individual named Brian See became central to the investigation.
Initially, information surfaced suggesting that See might claim responsibility for the call.
However, subsequent interviews painted a very different picture.
According to taped statements documented by police, See described conversations involving Taylor and concerns regarding the political consequences of a conviction.
One statement attributed to Taylor became particularly significant.
According to See, Taylor expressed concern that:
"my political career is going to be screwed."
Investigators questioned See about whether discussions had occurred regarding someone else taking responsibility for the call.
When asked whether he believed references and suggestions made during conversations were directed toward him becoming the individual who would claim responsibility, See answered:
"Yeah. I believe that's why."
Investigators further asked whether Taylor's concern about his political future was connected to finding someone else to assume responsibility.
See again responded:
"Yeah."
The allegations transformed what had begun as a harassment injunction investigation into something much more serious.
Sergeant Mix's Findings
By September 1999, La Crosse Police Sergeant Robert Mix had completed an extensive review of witness statements, recorded interviews, and other evidence.
His conclusions were among the strongest language found anywhere in the investigative file.
After reviewing the evidence, Mix wrote:
"Mr. See is a credible witness with nothing to gain from making the above allegations."
Mix further noted:
"Mr. See is an acquaintance of Mr. Taylor's and in Mr. See's own words, they are friends but they do associate with each other."
Most significantly, Mix formally requested prosecutorial review for additional criminal charges.
His report stated:
"This officer would request that the District Attorney's office review the above information for possible charges against Mr. Taylor for solicitation of perjury and obstruction of justice."
Mix also requested review concerning:
"possible ethics violations."
Those findings marked a turning point in the investigation.
What began as a harassment injunction violation had evolved into allegations involving witness influence, obstruction, and attempts to redirect responsibility for the conduct under investigation.
The Deferred Prosecution Agreement
Records contained within the investigative file show that Taylor later entered into a deferred prosecution agreement relating to the harassment injunction violation.
The agreement required Taylor to:
- Complete community service.
- Undergo counseling.
- Complete a psychological evaluation.
- Participate in alcohol and drug assessment.
- Pay restitution and fees.
- Maintain strict compliance with the no-contact order involving Kroner and her family.
The agreement specifically provided that:
"no contact means no direct or indirect contact whether in person, by phone or by mail."
The deferred prosecution agreement resolved the underlying harassment-order charge but did not end the broader investigation.
The Obstruction Conviction
The allegations documented by Sergeant Mix eventually resulted in an obstruction case.
According to contemporaneous reporting by the La Crosse Tribune, Taylor was later found guilty by a jury of misdemeanor obstruction.
The Tribune reported that prosecutors alleged Taylor attempted to convince an acquaintance to take responsibility for the phone call made to his former girlfriend while Taylor was prohibited from contacting her by court order.
Following the verdict, La Crosse County Circuit Judge Dale Pasell imposed a fine and probation.
"smacks of a certain arrogance"
The newspaper reported that Taylor did not testify during the trial.
Following the conviction, Taylor publicly stated:
"Today was a very humbling experience. Obviously, I wish the outcome had been different."
He also stated:
"I'm sorry if something that I said or expressed was taken in the wrong way and resulted in this whole process."
Taylor maintained his innocence and indicated that he was considering an appeal.
The conviction later became an issue during Taylor's 2001 reelection campaign for the La Crosse Common Council.
Daniel Bice Revisits the Case
More than a decade later, Milwaukee Journal Sentinel columnist Daniel Bice revisited the matter while reporting on Taylor's political career.
Bice reported that Taylor had entered a deferred prosecution agreement related to the harassment injunction violation and was later convicted of misdemeanor obstruction after prosecutors alleged he encouraged an acquaintance to provide false information during the investigation.
Bice also reported that Taylor described the case as a political attack and claimed he had been "railroaded."
The Journal Sentinel article largely mirrored the findings documented years earlier in the police file and reported by the La Crosse Tribune.
A Different Public Image
The historical record stands in notable contrast to Taylor's current public image.
On June 15, 2026, Taylor publicly recognized National Crime Victims' Rights Week and stated that his office would continue to serve as a resource for people who have been:
"abused, stalked, harassed, and obsessed over."
The statement presented Taylor as an advocate for victims of harassment and stalking.
Yet surviving police records document a period in which Taylor was the subject of a harassment injunction investigation that later evolved into an obstruction case.
Whether readers view that contrast as evidence of personal growth, political reinvention, or an unresolved contradiction is ultimately their own conclusion.
What cannot be disputed is that both events are part of the public record.
Why FCN Is Investigating
Some readers have asked why Franklin Community News continues to investigate Steve Taylor.
The answer is simple.
Steve Taylor is not a private citizen.
He is an elected public official entrusted with public authority, public resources, and public decision-making.
FCN's investigation did not begin with a decades-old police report.
The investigation began after multiple individuals contacted FCN regarding concerns about Taylor's conduct as a public official. Those concerns included allegations involving political retaliation, misuse of public office, intimidation, interference in public matters, employment-related disputes, and the use of political influence for personal or political purposes.
As part of its ongoing investigation, FCN publicly requested information from individuals with firsthand knowledge, emails, text messages, public records, court filings, employment records, and other documentation relevant to Taylor's conduct.
The purpose of the investigation is not to relitigate old personal disputes.
Rather, it is to determine whether a pattern exists that helps the public understand how an elected official exercises power, responds to criticism, treats political opponents, and conducts himself both inside and outside public office.
Public accountability does not expire because records become difficult to locate.
Nor does it disappear because the events occurred decades ago.
Questions involving honesty, judgment, credibility, and the exercise of power remain relevant regardless of when they first arose.
Taylor's Position
Taylor has consistently denied wrongdoing.
In public statements, he has characterized the cases as politically motivated and has maintained that he was unfairly targeted by opponents.
Readers should consider both the documentary evidence and Taylor's response when evaluating the historical record.
FCN's role is not to determine guilt or innocence.
Its role is to review records, verify facts, gather evidence, present relevant information, and allow readers to make their own informed judgments.
Conclusion
The surviving records tell a story far different from the abbreviated descriptions often associated with Steve Taylor's legal history.
The files document an investigation that began with a one-word voicemail, expanded into allegations involving witness influence, and ultimately resulted in an obstruction conviction reported by contemporaneous news coverage.
Whether voters view those events as ancient history, evidence of poor judgment, or a matter bearing directly on public trust is ultimately their decision.
What cannot be disputed is that the investigation occurred, the records exist, and the questions raised by those events remain part of the public record.
For that reason alone, they remain worthy of public examination.
This piece reflects the author’s personal opinion and experiences. All statements are presented as commentary protected under the First Amendment. Readers are encouraged to review public records, filings, and documented evidence referenced throughout this article.
Dr. Richard Busalacchi is the Publisher of Franklin Community News, where he focuses on government transparency, community accountability, and local public policy. He believes a community’s strength depends on open dialogue, honest leadership, and the courage to speak the truth—even when it makes powerful people uncomfortable.
🕯️ The solution isn’t another insider in a new office. It’s sunlight, scrutiny, and the courage to vote differently.
Because until voters demand honest, transparent government, the corruption won’t stop — it will only change titles.
Elections have consequences — and Franklin’s next one may decide whether transparency makes a comeback.
💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.
Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable
— for the greater good.
💬 If you value hard-hitting, fact-based investigative reporting about our hometown of Franklin — follow Franklin Community News on Facebook.
Together, we can keep local government honest, transparent, and accountable
— for the greater good.
© 2026 Franklin Community News. All rights reserved.
No comments:
Post a Comment