What Changed? Taylor and Vincent Cast Only No Votes on Further Review of County Board Conduct Code
Both supervisors previously supported developing a County Board Code of Conduct; Logsdon sought additional input from Corporation Counsel and the Ethics Board
By Dr. Richard Busalacchi
Franklin Community News
What changed for Milwaukee County Supervisors Steve Taylor and Kathleen Vincent?
That question emerged from the October 1 County Board meeting when Supervisor Patti Logsdon, author of File 26-610, asked that her proposed County Board Code of Conduct be referred back to committee to incorporate additional information from Milwaukee County Corporation Counsel and the Ethics Board.
The Board agreed.
Taylor and Vincent cast the only votes against the referral.
The vote did not adopt or reject the Code. It returned the proposal to the Committee on Judiciary, Law Enforcement and General Services for further consideration.
What makes those two no votes particularly noteworthy is the history behind the proposal.
Taylor and Vincent Previously Supported Developing a Code
In 2025, Taylor and Vincent were among the supervisors sponsoring the budget amendment calling for development of a County Board Code of Conduct.
That amendment specifically called for involvement by Corporation Counsel and the Ethics Board in developing the policy.
Now Logsdon has asked that the resulting proposal return to committee so additional information from those offices can be incorporated.
Taylor and Vincent voted no.
Their votes do not establish that either supervisor opposes every possible Code of Conduct.
But they raise an obvious question:
What changed?
Vincent Previously Questioned the Need
During the September 22 committee discussion, Vincent suggested the proposal appeared connected to a dispute between individual supervisors.
“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.”
There are two important pieces of context.
First, the legislative history shows that the effort to develop a Code of Conduct predates the dispute Vincent referenced.
Second, concerns previously examined by Franklin Community News extend well beyond one disagreement between two supervisors.
Concerns Involving Both Taylor and Vincent
FCN previously examined allegations and documented events involving both Taylor and Vincent, including questions involving retaliation, employment interference, contacts with other public officials and the use of taxpayer-funded County staff in matters outside ordinary County Board business.
A sworn affidavit from Logsdon described conversations she said she had with Vincent concerning Taylor, MATC, prosecutors and other public officials. FCN also reported allegations concerning a County legislative aide shared by Logsdon, Vincent and Taylor attending court proceedings unrelated to County Board business.
Those allegations are not findings of misconduct.
But they illustrate the broader institutional question raised by File 26-610:
What process exists when concerns about an elected supervisor's conduct or use of County resources extend beyond the County Board chamber?
Concerns About Taylor Span Decades
The concerns involving Taylor also predate the current County Board debate.
FCN's previous reporting identified a number of elected officials and community members who over the years publicly raised concerns or made allegations concerning Taylor's conduct, including former Milwaukee County Supervisors Deanna Alexander and Dan Sebring, and community members Sally Ann Chadwick, Mary Draginis, Gianfranco Zingales, Joy Draginis-Zingales and Bryan Maersch.
Their accounts involved different circumstances and should not collectively be treated as proof of misconduct.
Alexander publicly accused Taylor of bullying, retaliation and employment interference and later named him in federal litigation. Taylor disputed the allegations, and the litigation did not result in a judicial finding that Taylor caused Alexander's termination or unlawfully interfered with her employment.
Sebring publicly accused Taylor of attempting to intimidate him and criticized Taylor's conduct toward colleagues.
Maersch alleged that Taylor contacted his employer in an effort to have him fired over political criticism and separately contacted Franklin officials concerning Maersch's appointment to a City commission. Those allegations were not judicially established.
Taylor's record extends even further back.
Taylor, who has recently highlighted approximately 25 years of public service, began his elected career on the La Crosse Common Council in 1997.
During that period, a former girlfriend obtained a harassment injunction against him. A subsequent investigation eventually produced a separate obstruction prosecution after another individual alleged Taylor encouraged him to take responsibility for prohibited contact.
Taylor denied the allegation.
A jury convicted Taylor of misdemeanor obstruction in 2000.
Unlike the later allegations, that conviction is an established part of Taylor's public record.
More recently, the Milwaukee County Ethics Board reviewed Taylor's “Supervisor Steve F. Taylor” Facebook page. The Board did not find an Ethics Code violation but unanimously found a “strong reasonable appearance” that the page was County-affiliated and directed Taylor to deactivate it as a condition of dismissal.
Read the Proposed Code Yourself
File 26-610 would establish conduct standards and a complaint process while expressly protecting legitimate political disagreement and policy advocacy.
Readers can review the proposal directly:
Read File 26-610 and the current proposed Code of Conduct
Read the February 2026 Draft Code of Conduct Report — File 26-326
So What Changed?
Taylor and Vincent previously supported the effort to develop a County Board Code of Conduct.
Vincent subsequently argued that legislation should address institutional problems rather than individual disputes.
And on October 1, Taylor and Vincent were the only supervisors voting against Logsdon's request to return the proposal to committee for additional information from Corporation Counsel and the Ethics Board.
Their votes do not tell us why.
Taylor and Vincent can.
Do they still support a County Board Code of Conduct?
If so, what specifically do they object to in File 26-610?
Why oppose incorporating additional information from Corporation Counsel and the Ethics Board before the Board takes final action?
And considering the concerns that have been raised over many years involving the conduct of elected supervisors:
What process do Taylor and Vincent believe Milwaukee County should have to address legitimate complaints about the official conduct of its own County supervisors?
What changed?
No comments:
Post a Comment