On April 21, 2016, exactly 42 days after Ryan Maier overwhelmingly won at the polls defeating John Szerdi, one of Szerdi's supporters filed a code complaint against our new commissioner. Mr. Maier had not even had time to even get his feet wet in his new job. That side of politics were all reeling in anger and in shock at the results of the election that threw their guy out of office. They were out to get the newly elected commissioner in any way that they could.
Even our resident hothead who loves to toss around the race card and the N word, falsely accused him in a public meeting of running a business out of his house. Mayor Pam Triolo allows this outrageous behavior and denigration, free speech and all. It's like a sick reality TV show--who should we humiliate today? Did Commissioner Maier's political enemies trample on his private property snooping around in order to drum up something? What we know for sure is that they did trample on his rights.
The complaint was filed by Jessica Angeli Teutsch who does not live in our city. We are still wondering why Jessica Angeli got so heavily involved in this alleged code infraction as there is absolutely zero evidence. They even called the press and made a big to do about it, finding delight in their attempt to sully Mr. Maier's character even with the Vice Mayor, Scott Maxwell, trying to discuss it from the dais. The newly assigned reporter to Lake Worth with the PBPost fell right into their political trap, never interviewing Commissioner Maier.
In the meantime, Mark Woods, the Code Compliance Director has said on each and every pursuit of code officer Yolanda Robinson to justify her case, that there was NO evidence. No complaint could be confirmed. The City finally did the right thing.
This case has now be officially CLOSED.
| Number | Type | Status | Reported | Disposition |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 15 - 00000077 | CODE ENFORCEMENT | CASE CLOSED | 01/13/2015 | Public |
| 15 - 00000626 | CODE ENFORCEMENT | CASE CLOSED | 04/21/2015 | Public |
What was the cost for such nonsense?
ReplyDeleteShe should be made to pay for the time
spent on this wild goose chase! No one
outside our town should be allowed to make
a code complaint unless they are directly
a victim of such a complaint! Teachable
moment here - close the door on this
quickly before any Tom, Dick or Harry
decide they want to send our employees
out and about to do their bidding!
I sure wish code would focus its meager resources on the real code issues in this City. And, really, maybe our code ordinance needs to be tweaked so only residents within the city can file a complaint.
ReplyDeleteTo the people who support and oppose Maier:
ReplyDeleteEach party will believe what they want to believe is right and nastily fight each other tooth and nail to prove their side is the right side instead of trying to find the truth in the matter. Truth has no sides. He denied entry to his property when a simple, “Yes I believe in transparency, I am a public figure and I want to be held to equal or higher standard, come on in and see for yourself I have not converted my single family home into a duplex nor am I renting it out. The allegations against are false and here’s my proof… case closed.” As a commissioner and a representative of the people within this city don’t you think that maybe he should have abided by his own transparency policy and worked with his code staff instead of inhibiting them to do their jobs, which ultimately dragged this out for months? If it was me and I was a public figure and a complaint, regardless of how vengeful or inaccurate, was filed against me I would embrace “MY” own policy to prove to the people I am a stand up man and let the code officers inside to verify. Closing the door on his own staff and using his position to influence the dismissal of the case isn’t finding the truth but dodging a bullet. There’s a difference between dodging a bullet and catching it. Even though it’s his right to deny entry, don’t preach transparency when you won’t stand by it. As a leader in this community you are held to a higher standard. The City manager swept everything under the rug and that’s why the case is closed. I go to magistrate meetings every month and watch the code department instill thousands of dollars in fines against people for all kinds of violations and it’s not up to the code staff to decide guilty or not. They just read a script and ultimately it’s up to the Judge to look at the evidence and rule. If the evidence is weak then the judge can dismiss the case and can wave all the fines. If it were anyone else he would have gone to court. It’s nice to know our commissioner gets special privileges and bios for him. You would think he would want to prove his innocence instead of a get out of jail free card because of his position and hiding behind an amendment. It doesn’t matter if he was a commissioner for 5 days or 5 years, being a standup person does not have a self-life. I’m not saying he’s definitely guilty or innocent all I’m saying is that it shows a bad example when you plead the 5th instead of allowing your own people inside to do a proper investigation. I’m pretty sure people will bash my comment regarding this matter which is fine because everything has an opinion but what’s right is right. Wouldn’t you want your commissioner to have his innocence undeniably proven instead of swept away under a technicality?
does every comment get approved and open for discussion or only the ones that fit the agenda?
ReplyDelete@11:35...we have gone round and round on this one. I will never understand why you think the way that you do in this instance.
ReplyDeleteThe city attorney disagrees with you.
The Code Compliance Director disagrees with you
And the city disagrees with you.
Just good old common sense and the US Constitution disagrees with you.
I voted for Maier, he ran a good campaign and sadly enough people that win sometimes get smeared with negativity which is unfortunate. I'm not completely agreeing with anonymous but he/she has good point. If he truly is innocent why pull the 5th amendment and drag this out just let them in verify no violation then leave, no skepticism or political augments. I am not completely disagreeing with you Lynn, it is he right in US Constitution but just because its his right does not mean it was the best decision. He would have looked a lot better at the end of the day than he does now by just squashing it in the beginning. If I had a choice to do it again I wouldn't vote for him. I wouldn't want a person representing me who doesn't seem on the level.
ReplyDeleteDo we have to go on with this? Really? You can NOT use Gestapo tactics in running our municipality or in this country. Put the political shoe on your foot. How would you like every nut case to come out of the woodwork and attack you for any and everything that is unsubstantiated and then you have to spend money and time defending yourself?
ReplyDeleteGod, people.
Doesn't the City have enough law suits? If the city attorney says NO CASE, then believe him.
Maier's credibility is just fine with me. It is the slimy side of politics that I have a problem with.
so say for example your neighbor decided to start a sober home inside for instance, regardless of who complained and then code went to check on it and they wouldn't let them in case closed because there was no evidence to be verified? you would be fine with that? yes? no?
ReplyDeleteYou have to have proof, anonymous @ 2:46. To prove a crime beyond a reasonable doubt means that all possible doubts about the defendant’s guilt have been removed based on the evidence - in this case there was NO EVIDENCE.
ReplyDeleteNow, other code complaints are easy when they involve an exterior problem. You can see it with the naked eye such as garbage, shutters hanging off, pool full of rats, whatever.
I can only speak from my own experience, I had a code complaint filed and I opted for a hearing rather than letting them inspect. Why, b/c I didn't think they had a right to inspect. I opted for the hearing, and soundly won. I could have, and indeed my husband suggested, that we just let them inspect. I didn't want to roll over b/c I knew I was right.
ReplyDeleteShould an elected official be held to a higher standard, maybe, but I still think people should, elected or not, have a right to decide who gets to enter their home (we do have the 4th Amendment after all). Its not as if when you tell them no you can't inspect the code complaint goes away. I had to attend a hearing and bring evidence, etc. The hearing officer reviewed that information and made a decision that I was right. And there was a risk in denying them the inspection, if I had lost at hearing there could have been fines, etc. If the hearing officer had decided I wasn't right, I would have appealed to circuit court (that is how committed I was to proving I was right) and actually was hoping it was go that way, so the Circuit Court could smack down the City.
I believe in code enforcement, we need good code enforcement in this City, the problem is code was hassling me (when I was already following the rules and already complying with our ordinances) in order to get what they would be easy money. They don't want to address the tough cases, instead they waste time on stupid stuff.
your dodging the question. If the only way code could prove its a sober home is by getting inside and they were denied entry to verify it, even though you know personally its a sober home therefore there is no evidence that code can obtain without interior access would you accept that it is a closed matter?
ReplyDeleteI answered the question.
ReplyDeleteNow where is your house? I heard there was prostitution going on there and I want some one to enter your house and check it out all on hearsay. Paleez.
Code has to be able to prove the allegation legally.
I know nothing of the truth of the allegations in his code case. He ran on transparency and was very vocal about it at the first commission meeting. If I remember, he said that if the price of transparency is inconvenience, then he celebrates and welcomes that.
ReplyDeleteHe lost me when he refused to open the door. Had he not said all that I would have given him the benefit of the doubt and said he should be treated like everyone else.
You can't go around celebrating transparency when it fits your agenda, then avoid it when it is the strategic thing to do. He is like Hillary Clinton in this case. He simply pursued a strategy - fine. The issue is that he lost the moral standing when he didn't follow his own words. It was his right to not open the door - but it is the peoples' right to judge his moral character for not doing so.
That is the issue I have with him. Not the allegations, but his reaction and that he showed his character with how he handled it.
Well fine...Everyone has unjustified "issues." Just follow the law.
ReplyDeleteI'm not sure why you would use sober home as an example, since we are hamstrung by the ADA to regulate them at all.
ReplyDeleteBut, assume its an illegal vacation rental and code wanted to inspect and you as the owner said no. What would happen? You would get called to a hearing and a master would decide your case. What happens at a code case, the code officer presents their evidence and you present yours and the master decides. Maybe in the case of an illegal vacation rental, the code officer might have documentation showing that you are renting it on VRBO, there might be photos of cars with out of state licenses plates over the course of months, noise complaints by neighbors, etc. As for a sober home, similar outside the home evidence could be gathered (although code won't do anything about a sober home b/c they can't, they also won't do anything about vacation rentals b/c leadership has said not to). You might also get fined, etc. But you still don't have to open your door simply b/c someone has filed a complaint. More than likely the code case would end up in Court and and a Court would order you to allow an inspection and if you didn't comply then you would be in civil contempt and if you still didn't comply, criminal contempt.
I agree you don't have to open your door just because someone files a complaint. You would think a commissioner who ran on a platform entirely based on transparency would be more open to resolve a issue for at least to preserve his moral character within the eyes of the public than plead the 5th and going against code than working with them. It puts reasonable doubt into the minds of the people he was elected to represent and is a bad example of transparency. This case should have went to court and if there wasn't enough evidence it would have been dismissed. Then at least in the eyes of the public it would have been resolved and all the evidence or lack of would have been out in the open instead of only a vague description in a closed code case where inferences could be made on both sides.
ReplyDeleteYou say "in the eyes of the public it would have been resolved." IT WAS RESOLVED. It is dismissed for lack of evidence. NO MORE.. You are not understanding the law. Why do you go on and on wanting your own way on this?
ReplyDeleteCommissioner Maier's platform was people, not politics. And you are playing politics. All those behind this should concentrate on something else. You lost the election. You lost this round against Maier too. Now let's get down to business.
Lynn you will fight tooth and nail for Maier regardless of what anyone says or presents. Which doesn't necessarily make you wrong since your so focused on the constitution its your right. Just as the people that don't feel the same way you do have the right to express their opinion. That's the beauty of a open forum, your able to see multiple views in which make Lake Worth so great and unique. Out all the comments and statements made so far in this blog section, anonymous from 3:49 said it best!
ReplyDeleteYou should say, "IN MY OPINION" 3:49 said it best. Unfortunately it is just plain wrong. You just want Maier to give up his rights to please you. You all should be making a big apology to him instead of trying so hard in your argument to take away his civil rights.
ReplyDeleteNow, if you think this decision is WRONG, take it up with the city attorney who will set you straight. Otherwise, enough already!
calm down Lynn. Running a blog you'd think that you would welcome various community opinion for spirited debates? Judging from your reactions it seems not. Its your way or the highway...
ReplyDeleteSorry you didn't "get" Maier and that you're angry. You lost the debate. So who needs to calm down? Did I not post your incessant rants?
ReplyDeleteSo Lynn can you help me out?
ReplyDeleteI hear there is a move afoot to change the ordinances to include businesses in the residential areas. Some sort of art league or something like that is heading it up. I can't find anything on it and want to know if it's just a rumor. I'd be for it!
Can you shed any light on this topic?
hahahaaaaaaaaaaaaaa You WOULD be for it. Who is this, Wes Easton?
ReplyDeleteAll this for a local issue meanwhile our prez is visiting his "homeland" on our dime. His sperm doner wasn't even African, whole thing a lie which somehow got votes.
ReplyDeleteIt was the pro-Hudson Holdings crowd (always the same people behind it, just just found themselves a new stooge from Lantana) once again using code enforcement as a political weapon. They do it year after year. They need to be stopped and I'm glad Maier pushed back. Political sour grapes. They did it to Jennings, Drautz, Waterman too. Jerks.
ReplyDeleteMaier ran on government transparency. That's the only transparency you're entitled to, people. You're not entitled to tour his private space because some Zerdi toady makes up a complaint. Get real. If you want to give up your privacy to LW code enforcement, post your address and do it. Leave the rest of us alone.
The worst code case in the city is located less than 200 feet from Scott Maxwell's house.
ReplyDeleteThis whole discussion has turned stale. Maier was equitted regardless if it was for his position or truely lack of evidence sobcase closed. Lake worth is corrupt and will always be that as long as the city has ties to backward deal with companies ie. Hud Holdings, the mudayne ways they treat there employees (did you know from the union meeting, the city wants to force them to sign a contract for a 4% raise every 3 years and not one employee has recieved a dime higher in 8 years other than the city manager and department heads in excess of $10,000) and for the people who have such strong issues with code.. Why dont you apply for a job there ive seen them posted online, instead of just complaining about them all the time.
ReplyDelete@9:48--We have a ton of code infractions in our city and many are extremely serious. Code is supposed to concentrate on the worst first. In the case of commissioner Maier, it was all political based on no evidence. I don't know how many times I have to say that before it sinks in.
ReplyDeleteI am not sure that your assumption is correct that we "just complain about them all the time" meaning code officers. I think they do a great job with a reduced force. Ms. Robinson should have received better advice in her pursuit in the Maier case.
Right now employee expenses take over 2 thirds of our budget. We are a city crawling out of a financial grave from a major recession. I understand frustration with no raise but you can't take blood from a turnip. Employee wages and benefits are pretty good. Give our city some time to turn around and it will all get better. We went through a very rough period.
So if were crawling out of a financial grave. Justify the city manager n department heads $10,000+ annual raises but yet no money to give employees in 8 years?
ReplyDeleteNever said that, anonymous @ 11:24. Not sure about your 8 years with no raises, but what I have suggested is that at the very least a cost of living increase be included in the budget if we can afford it. A raise should be on merit (not just showing up and performing your job and what you are paid to do anyway) and when we get to the position that the city can give out raises, I believe that they will. Top management was insensitive to staff by giving big raises to a few at the top of the food chain and ignoring the rest of their departments who do the work. We are still in a terrible budget crunch but big raises were given to some in management. Staff has a union fighting for them, do they not?
ReplyDeleteThey do have a union fighting from what ive heard, if raises were based off merit im sure alot more would get done. The city needs to lead by example and granting huge raises to the top of the chain and fighting the union doesnt show support and value for the people under them.
ReplyDelete