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.
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
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
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
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.
💬 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