Despite Assertions, Bonser Denies She Leaked City info to Family Friend

Bonnie Brucker released a letter recently that says she discussed confidential information about a city property deal with Councilwoman Adrian Bonser prior to Bonser's vacation. Bonser speculates Brucker may have snooped through files.

Speculation about who leaked information about a major Dunwoody redevelopment deal has raged for months.

In a March investigative report, written by former DeKalb DA Bob Wilson, it named former City Attorney Brian Anderson and Councilwoman Adrian Bonser as the leakers.

Well, things just got more complicated - or more simple?

Bonnie Brucker, a former house sitter for Bonser, has come forward with a letter (attached to this article) that claims Bonser discussed details of the confidential "Project Renaissance" property deal at Bonser's home.

Brucker claims the conversation came the night after a Feb. 3 executive council session where the deal was discussed. Brucker writes she had no real idea what she was getting herself involved in.

"For nearly six months, I have remained silent, but I am no longer willing to continue to do so," Brucker wrote. "It has become evident that unless I come forward, this situation will continue to drain the city coffers," she wrote.

Brucker goes on to say that Bonser, unsolicited, talked about the city property deal, the involvement of John Wieland Homes in the development and the "general price range" of the homes.

The apparent leak could have ended there. However, Brucker ran into political observer Bob Lundsten in February at a Phillips 66 gas station he frequents, he said. "We literally ran into each other at the gas station," he said.

Brucker then told Lundsten of the conversation with Bonser. He then asked her if the information was from a city executive session. Lundsten, the Chief of Staff for County Commissioner Elaine Boyer, said it was a breach of executive session confidentiality and a serious issue.

The rest of the story has been pretty well documented - and it became a firestorm

Lundsten reported on his "Duwnoody Farmer Bob" blog regarding information about the Wieland deal, the potential property sale and even price points of the various homes planned in the development. He relayed this information in a blog post entitled "Loose Lips Sink Ships."  in February.

Blog posts on the leak started a city firestorm, as it became obvious there was a leaker. That violated city's ethics code, state law and could have jeopardized a city development deal.

Lundsten, for his part, said he felt caught in the crossfire in one of the most divisive city issues to date. Lundsten said his blog became the focus of the issue, not the leak, and that seemed to be a distration for the real issues at hand.

"Really the focus got put on me because I was the one that broke the story on my blog," Lundsten said.

Caught in the crossfire?

Lundsten says that Brucker became wrapped up in controversy she could not predict. Brucker is president of her condo homeowner’s association, an avid supporter of the Dunwoody PD, attends council meetings and participated in the adult police academy.

But she's no political operative. "You know, she lives in Dunwoody and has no role in any of this stuff," Lundtesn said.

Lundsten laid out his role in spreading the confidential information about the city leaks. Days after the leak, Lundsten posted the information from Rep. Tom Taylor's office on Lundsten personal computer to his blog, he said.

Legal demands, including defamatory statements

Things turned legal quickly in the last few days. Bonser's attorney, Matt Reeves, sent a letter to Lundsten Aug. 2 or 3 that demanded Lundsten name his source in the investigation or acknowledge there was no source.

"My non-response was to be an admission that there was no source," Lundsten  said. Lundsten was also threatened with making defamatory statements, he said. The letter did not just limit the defamatory claims to Lundsten's personal assets - it also included potential liability as a county employee, he said.

Does Bonser trust a friend she would have housesit her home?

Maybe the strangest assertion made by Bonser's attorney is that it was speculated that Brucker may have rifled through confidential documents in Bonser's home while she was house sitting in February, which Bonser's camp claims could have revealed the secret Georgetown property deal.

Bonser, entrusted her house to Brucker while she was in New Zealand on a cruise with her husband. Brian Bonser, Adrian Bonser's husband, denied that Brucker discussed confidential information while they prepared for their trip and the house-sitting duties.

Lundsten questioned Brian Bonser's motivation.

"Does it surprise anyone? It comes as no surprise that the only collaborating source is her husband. It's not shocking and not surprising", Lundsten said

Lundsten also questioned Bonser outing Brucker and questioning her friend's integrity.

"Adrian's unfounded accusations are out in the public realm. Which is despicable and shouldn't be in the public realm," Lundsten said.

Honey Boo-boo August 18, 2012 at 05:11 PM
Two butt-in-skis, Happenstance meeting at Phillips 66, Ego-centric politician; $100,000+++ Making Dunwoody a bigger joke than the "Home of the riding vacuum?" Priceless. For everything else, you need an Excedrin. You people !!!
Rob August 18, 2012 at 05:23 PM
I don`t understand why people have such a hard time of admitting the fact that they made a mistake. if she had done this long ago, many of us would have more respect for her, and all of this nonsense, as well as $80,000+ of expenses to the city, would have been averted. Also, @Jason - Please get a handle on the spammer that is manipulating this site.
Honey Boo-boo August 18, 2012 at 05:44 PM
Don't take yourself too seriously, Rob. I doubt the good folk at Patcheroo-World feel manipulated. This latest chapter in the farce is clearly an effort to avoid that uncomfortable squirmy feeling that a subpoena usually invokes. Always remember the First Law of Modern Society: Unless it occurs at the end on their driveway, nobody really gives a hoot.
Honey Boo-boo August 18, 2012 at 05:58 PM
What is there to discuss? Really, two private citizens, both well known in the local community as What? Gadflies, gossips, movers and shakers of minute-mounds-of-muck have come forward to avoid getting wumped up-on from the business end of a ethics probe? Dunwoody's own Wayward and Bumstead get a smidge of embarrassment instead of a much worse fate, like wax-winged Icarus flying too close to the Sun. Neither of these two nincompoops are important, they are a two-penney sideshow to the main event, the broiling of a shrew. I'm gonna go play with my cats, at least they have sense enough to avoid hitting the send button.
Milton Friedman August 19, 2012 at 03:58 AM
Is it not a possibility that when the Ethics Board begins its review that they could l request an official police investigation? For example, cell phone records to show the whereabouts by all parties on the evening of Friday Feb. 3rd. Performing forensic reviews of Ms. Bonser's home computer and city email accounts, along with her cell phone email and text records, etc. This could get much, much worse for many I'm afraid.
Jason Massad August 19, 2012 at 11:25 AM
Sneiderman's attorney claims friend may have searched through her personal papers, leading to leak. You believe it?
Apri; bonserrt August 19, 2012 at 12:47 PM
This is not a criminal procedure. It is an administrative action. The ethics commitee has been turned into a mini court which it is not. No laws were broken unless Bonser thinks she canfile charges against Brucker. There is no slander or libel against bloggers or those who comment because the standards for Public figures has not even come close to being met. Ironicaly it is Brucker who has a claim after being accused by Bonser of something that is in fact damaging to her lively hood. Bonser will go to any length to dicredit everyone who speakes against,
Whatever August 19, 2012 at 08:20 PM
No doubt Bonser and her husband are lying. their attempt to smear the source now that she came forward has back fired. Just ask Dick Williams of the Crier if Brian Bonser came to his office in an attempt to discredit Ms. Brucker in hopes Mr. Williams would write such a story. How do you think the Crier got a copy of the letter the Bonser's attorney submitted to the Ethics Board disputing Ms. Brucker's letter? And shame on Adrian for throwing yet another innocent person under the bus because this person stood up and did the right thing! Adrian needs an ethics transplant! And Brian needs to grow a pair and tell his wife she's making a fool of herself and to stop this one lie after another feudal path of denial. It's all out now. There's nothing left to deny!
Whatever August 19, 2012 at 09:35 PM
If Brucker didn't tell Lundsten Friday night, then how does he call Henneghan letting him know he's got the information? Bonser's story falls apart right there!
Jumping Jim August 19, 2012 at 11:18 PM
Jason: We've all noticed how you changed the title of this article to "Despite Assertions, ..." from "Despite Evidence, Bonser Denies She Leaked City info to Family Friend." What happened to make you change from "evidence" to "assertions"? Did a Bonser or her attorney intimidate you, too, just as they are the key witness?
Rob August 20, 2012 at 12:17 AM
Whatever August 20, 2012 at 03:07 PM
That was an interesting "switch". So Jason, why did you modify the headline? @ Rob / Rob Turner / Robert Turner / Honey Boo-boo - let me save you the post....Spammer....


More »
Got a question? Something on your mind? Talk to your community, directly.
Note Article
Just a short thought to get the word out quickly about anything in your neighborhood.
Share something with your neighbors.What's on your mind?What's on your mind?Make an announcement, speak your mind, or sell somethingPost something