Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Public Comment Police Allegation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Resident alleges stalking charge was filed from city hall; commissioners and staff say state handled charging
Summary
At the March 12 Coconut Creek City Commission meeting, residents Bob Budro and Joe Wade alleged a stalking charge against Wade was based on a police report filed from city hall and disputed city denials; commissioners and staff said police reports do not automatically result in charges and the state attorney is the charging authority.
A pair of residents used the public comment period at the Coconut Creek City Commission meeting on March 12 to accuse city officials of inconsistency over a past stalking charge and to demand clarity about how the charge was filed.
Bob Budro told the commission that court records list the Coconut Creek Police Department as the filing agency for a stalking charge against Joe Wade and said the city’s chief of police and city attorney later denied involvement. “Does truth, ethics, and honor have any value to those who served the residents of Coconut Creek?” Budro asked, arguing the charge was initiated from inside the commission chamber and saying the state attorney subsequently dismissed the charge.
Joe Wade, who identified himself during the comment period, said he was the victim of a process that never included an investigation or contact with him: “I am Joe Wade. I’m the victim here and I am tired I am tired of being run around by everyone in every place. I only ask for the truth,” he told the commission.
Commissioners and city staff responded during the meeting by emphasizing the difference between a police report and a criminal charging decision. City representatives said police reports are generated routinely and that the state attorney’s office is the charging authority that determines whether charges move forward. The commission did not take formal action on the matter during the meeting.
The complaint prompted back-and-forth on chamber decorum and how public comments are handled; commissioners said they are constrained by free-speech protections but also noted concerns about misinformation circulating in public forums. No independent investigation was announced at the March 12 meeting.
What the speakers said and what is documented in court records differed in the meeting record. Budro asserted documents show the Coconut Creek Police Department as the filing agency and that the charge was later dismissed; those claims were presented as his account to the commission and were not adjudicated at the meeting.
The commission’s next regular meeting was not used to resolve the dispute; the item remains a matter raised in public comment rather than a formal agenda item with evidence presented to the commission.
