for his “no” vote, no mention was made about city employees, and their feelings,
or was any apology offered to them for Commissioner Grant’s behavior, as he
was one of her supporters. There was no mention of the city employees who
were directly affected by Commissioner Grant’s behavior; Commissioner S.
Martin said it was a personality conflict, stating, “… I think there was some
unprofessionalism, and I think all of this started between her and her employee
or aide.” Mr. de Jesus said Commissioner S. Martin went on to state, “I do not
believe that this should be
a big public censure, because there was a
personality conflict with her and her aide, and my answer is no.” He asked
Commissioner S. Martin if he felt there was also a personality conflict between
Commissioner Grant and the other 19 city employees involved; thus, it
appeared Commissioner S. Martin was more focused on downplaying the issue
than on considering the work environment, and the concerns of the city
employees, and the concerns of the latter were not taken seriously by him. Mr.
de Jesus thought Commissioner S. Martin seemed to place the blame on the
aides, rather than holding Commissioner Grant accountable for her role in the
situation.
He noticed that Commissioner S. Martin and Commissioner Grant
appeared to have joined forces in the current election campaign, as evidenced
by seeing both commissioners on a flyer together, along with three other
candidates, so it seemed they were all running as a team with a goal of being
elected together.
He asked Commissioner S. Martin if Commissioner Grant
promised him anything if she were to win the mayor’s seat, wondering if this
was the reason he voted no earlier to hold her accountable; that is, was the no
vote a down payment of an alliance with her. The people of Lauderhill deserved
to know whether personal friendships and political alliances were more
important to these candidates than protecting Lauderhill and its citizens, and
ensuring accountability from city leaders.
He believed the city employees
deserved better than such treatment; they deserved respect, and they should
not be scared to come to work, or be forced to unbutton their shirt to be
searched for a wire if the city official was behaving ethically.
Commissioner Dunn remarked on thinking about the three incidents that led to
the subject conversations, both at previous meetings and at the present
meeting: first with the harassing behavior toward city employees; the issue of
using the city vehicle; and then the reimbursement discrepancies, added to
which was the FDLE investigation. Though the independent investigator found
no harassment, there was bullying behavior, and that triggered the discovery of
the FDLE investigation; she was unaware of the latter until she got the report of
the bullying and the intimidating behavior. She noted the new City Code of
Conduct went into effect in February 2024, and on Monday, October 21, 2024,
she was the victim of harassing, bullying behavior from Commissioner Grant,
who publicly called her ugly, told her she needed to go get a man; such behavior
was, therefore, a violation of the City’s new Code of Conduct put in place due to
her behavior toward city employees.
Commissioner Dunn said she previously
put forth the motion to censure Commissioner Grant, because she believed
Lauderhill’s employees needed a safe environment where they felt respected,
and protected when at work. A true leader was not pushy, did not bully, and
was not money hungry; they lived a disciplined life, seeking wisdom, and they
were honest and good tempered.
wrongdoing of all kinds, had
She believed good leaders abhorred
sound moral foundation, and were
a
compassionate; they served, and led with their heart.
Lauderhill’s leaders did
not know everything, and mistakes were made at times, but their intent was
always to work in the best interest of Lauderhill’s residents, and city employees,
who expected their leaders to lead by example.
Commissioner Dunn felt it
