.

Bonser Calls for Dismissal of Complaint

Bonser's attorney says they could seek depositions of city council members and Mayor Mike Davis in the event of a hearing.

Counwilwoman Adrian Bonser is calling for the dismissal of the ethics complaint against her, and says she might seek depositions from members of the city council and a city development partner to defend herself if an ethics hearing moves forward.

Bonser is alleged to have leaked information about the development of what is now know as "Project Rennaisance" a 35-acre redevelopment planned for Georgetown with John Wieland Homes and Neighborhoods.

"While dismissal of the complaint is clearly warranted at this time, if the board precedes to a hearing, Dr. Bonser requests the opportunity to conduct discovery beforehand," according to a response filed with the city by her attorney.

"She would like to send a request for production of documents to City Manager (Warren) Hutmacher, Bob Lundsten, Bob Lundsten's alleged source when that person is revealed, Kerry de Vallete, Terry Nall and other council members and/or the Mayor, representatives of John Wieland Homes, and others; and depose most of these witnesses."

Bonser's response to the ethics complaint that she leaked confidential information from a Jan. 23 and Feb. 3 executive sessions was received by the city last week.

City officials, however, said that the document didn't have to be disclosed right away under the state's Open Records Act because it was related to an investgation of a public official.

The stance seems to run counter to the release of an investigative report prepared May 29 by Bob Wilson, former Dekalb County District Attorney, which alleges Bonser and former City Attorney Brian Anderson were the sources of the leak. The city also released the response of the acting city attorney to the ethics complaint against Bonser.

Meanwhile, Bonser sent her response to the ethics complaint to the Dunwoody Crier, according to an email she sent Tuesday to Dunwoody Patch along with a copy of the response - which is attached in full to this story.

Bonser's attorney makes key assertions in the response, including:

  • E-mails she wrote to constituents that are alleged to discuss details of the property deal after it was made public on blogs and local news accounts is allowed under the city code regarding a public servant's right to "publically express their opinion on the effect of public actions."
  • An e-mail from a blogger and city observer in February seemed to contain evidence of leaked information about the property deal but was not pursued by investigators.
  • That the city investigators deemed that the council called a valid executive session to discuss the property deal, which contained discussion about the sale and purchase of property. Yet they report provided no legal basis for the opinion.
  • Regardless of the validity of the executive session, that Bonser made no improper public disclosures of priviliged information.
  • That she has requested public documents pertaining to the city's investigation and has not received them. 
  • The letter raises the issue of defamation, and asserts that the Bob Wilson investigation should have not been disclosed by the city until the ethics complaint moved forward, per the city's code.
Mary July 18, 2012 at 03:07 PM
Evidence points to you and Chip and several others here being the same person as was shown on other posts. Sorry, many of us are not buying.
Chip Bagman July 18, 2012 at 03:31 PM
First to Jimmie: I don't think Bob Lundsten ever publicly declared himself as having privileges for being a journalist. I believe that Bob is protecting his sources from retribution by Adrian (his words, not mine.) I suspect that if someone with subpoena power (which Bob Wilson's investigation didn't have) brings Bob Lundsten to testify, Bob would have to comply. Look for that in the Ethics hearing. To Mary: What is the "evidence" that Jimmie and I are the same person? There has been one documented case of a single user creating multiple identities to ratchet up the blog posts. For my part, I've been around for almost 3 years, been criticized and pilloried by several other bloggers, lauded by a few. I am an independent voice and only appear on these blogs as "Chip Bagman." That is my only nom de plume or "alias" as you wish.
jimmie July 18, 2012 at 03:57 PM
Chip: Fair enough. We are in a good spot awaiting the outcome. I think Mary has issues..if she really is a Mary...she may be a rob, or an ed or a max or an emily.
Bob Lundsten July 18, 2012 at 10:54 PM
I never asked for a shield of a journalist. To even put me in the category of a journalist is an insult to ever professional journalist in the country. Some say my blogging is an embarrassment to bloggers worldwide. I just will not release my source: PERIOD. Sue me for what? Releasing a story? Reading the Wilson Report and agreeing with it and asking both Bonser and Anderson to resign ? I am a blogger. People choose to read it or not. More people do not than do. If you actually read the blogs, Loose Lips sink ships, I agree with Bonser’s position that she has now taken that the meetings should not have been held in executive session (loose Lips) Loose lips II is on exactly the same topic. I say if there are leaks the city should take action. Neither of these two blogs mentions Ms Bonser The third blog is a comparison of our leaks to leaks in the Vatican. No mention of Bonser there either. 4th is a blog about supporting the hiring of Bob Wilson. An independent investigation though Bonser disagrees with the findings. (the Hammer) Blogs 5 and 6 on the topic, question the deal and why John Wieland Homes was the only bidder and my total lack of understanding of how the two land deals are financed. No Bonser mention
Bob Lundsten July 18, 2012 at 11:07 PM
Now Blog 7 , Time to Right the Ship, after reading the report, I agreed with Mr. Wilson's assessment . It confirmed what I already knew. Calling for her to resign and end the embarrassment is not slander or libel or anything else. It is simply my opinion in my blog. My 8th Blog on this topic was a cut a paste from John H’s blog: The Mission, Vision and Values from our City code and Charter. Nope, no Bonser there either Blog 9 was a revisit to the Vatican. Unless Ms. Bonser is a nun, there is no mention of her there either. Blog 10 was about the hiring of counsel for the Ethics Committee. Given what is going on it seemed like a great idea. Still does. Blog 11: Is a call again for Ms. Bonser to resign. I even suggest that Dunwoody is very forgiving and if show would admit what she had done and apologized this would all go away. Now I really know “Jimmie” does not read my blog because it is all about my discovery of Community Gardens. For those who know me, I never claimed to be a Master Gardener. Adrian is looking for a bad guy so she can play the victim. Nice try. One of my first Blogs had a simple message. I do not take this personally. My offer always stands; want to talk face to face? See you at the Hickory House any Saturday morning before I head to the garden.
Rob July 19, 2012 at 01:49 AM
Bob - I would not waste my time explaining anything to Jimmie or Chip, they are names a spammer who hides behind many identities here on the Patch and evidently, many other boards/blogs uses to start arguments. According to a news message board, he is actually a blogger himself here in Dunwoody. Follow the link below and read the replies to the article, it depicts a sad individual who obviously lacks intelligence: http://www.reporternewspapers.net/2012/06/28/council-hires-lawyer-for-ethics-board/#comments Max, Chip, Truthfully, Jimmie, Goddess of Truth, etc... time to pack it in!
Rob July 19, 2012 at 01:51 AM
Interesting how Jimmie and Chip always respond within minutes to a reply about a post they commented on or better yet, one that mentions their name. I wonder?????????
jimmie July 19, 2012 at 02:07 AM
I think the boat has been missed regarding my comment about Bob. Libel is a written, malicious and false report. Slander is the same but spoken. My position is that if Dr. Bonser chooses to pursue a civil action against a blogger who stemmed harm to her reputation, I think she has a good case. First, there is the defaming statement. I was told by a mystery person she leaked. Followed by I refuse to identify the person. Followed by numerous references presuming guilt and further defaming Dr. Bonser (that would be harm). Followed now by emails released by Dr. Bonser showing Bobs disdain for her record (that would be motive). Now a jury would have to weight i you can shield a source which of course you admitted you cant because what Bob practices isn;t journalism (his words here). that leaves the simple choice: give up the name of the source so the jury can hear from them (if there indeed was one who said it was Dr. Bonser) or leave it in the juries hands as to if you have to pay up. I'd pay to see the festivities. All Bob has done with his response here saying there is no shield is to substantiate Dr. Bonsers position that Wilson should have subpoaened the name from Bob or make mention that Bob refused to answer a subpoena to produce evidence. Thus, Wilsons report continues to lose credibility. Hope that clears up my thoughts. BTW, anybody notice the Wilson report has suddenly disappeared from the citys...hmmmm Cheers!
jimmie July 19, 2012 at 02:09 AM
Rob is a living example of another slanderer. All I can say Rob is prove it. Otherwise, stop waste our time with your human waste of commentary
jimmie July 19, 2012 at 02:20 AM
rob, judging from your history of posts i would say you add nothing to a debate or discussion. only hither and blither. maybe your comment to julie about christ and his doings should be taken to heart. just saying buddy. be a part of the debate, not a vile, abusive detractor
Rob July 19, 2012 at 02:35 AM
Quote "All I can say Rob is prove it." Quote You just did...
jimmie July 19, 2012 at 02:43 AM
Goodnight Rob, and ed and emily and mark and max and milton and whoever you plan on being in your dreams. Good night all from the road. IF you want to debate the ethics debacle, cool. IF you want to waste everyones time, blog with Rob. Cheers!
jimmie July 19, 2012 at 02:45 AM
Oh, and Kudos to Chick-fil-a president for coming out in favor of the traditional family. Amazing, how much we've denigrated as a society when people are lauded for stating Gods plan.
jimmie July 19, 2012 at 03:16 AM
straight as a flag pole robert; at least we can agree on the impact that the breakdown of the traditional family is having on society.
Chip Bagman July 19, 2012 at 03:16 AM
Rob: Since "Rob" is a common name, I just hope you're not Rob A. Although, that would make things a lot clearer. There's no mystery as to how Jimmie and I can rebut each other fairly quickly; we've got our comments linked into our email accounts for replies. If I say something, Jimmie gets in in an email within a few minutes; and vice-versa. Anyone can do this when they leave a comment. And, btw, the reference in Patch you gave citing "Staff" to "Mr. Hollander" is a spoof, too. If it were a real complaint, Jason Maasad would have written it; and Jason would have identified himself as the poster. And, I don't usually respond to personal attacks or use invective against my correspondents. "T'ain't Fittin'" as some used to say.
jimmie July 19, 2012 at 03:20 AM
hey chip thank god youre still awake. you have just described why youre worthy of conversing with. night all
Rob Augustine July 19, 2012 at 10:23 PM
Hey bagman: my name is Rob Augustine. Nothing different . When I've got something to say to you, you will know it's from me. Otherwise bagman enjoy yourself and don't refer to me as I'm not any other name on these stupid blogs. Hope you enjoy your banter and banality.
DunwoodyWorkingMan July 19, 2012 at 10:36 PM
Chip and Jimmie are not the same person, I know for sure.
Goddess of Truth July 20, 2012 at 02:40 AM
Rob A - I cannot attest to your additional accusations. I am not any of the other alias' that you listed in these posts. Personally, I have doubts that Jimmie and Chip are the same person. Almost positive that Jimmie is B. Bonser.....guess he has to change his "handle" now. Sorry Bri-guy. Oh, and I KNOW who Max is......I am not related. Question: Who has been the common denominator in every city scandal thus far?
jimmie July 20, 2012 at 12:42 PM
Sorry Godess. I'm just an independent, unrelated citizen who doesn't even know Dr. Bonser or her family personally. I have spent quite a few years helping interpret contracts and been on an ethics board for cpas. I viewed the process, read the, at times, vile comments, read the city ordinances regarding ethics and thought she needed a voice. NOtice I don't hurl rudeness, just reasonable conclusions on the information presented and the ordinances. What I like about Chip is, although we have different opinions, he debates without personal attacks. I don't know anything about anyone in dunwoody government but I do know that this process has been fatally flawed and she has undergone needless defamation at our expense and we need to move forward in a clean way. Cheers
Capital July 20, 2012 at 01:06 PM
I would put $100 on Warren H. as well.
Jason Massad July 20, 2012 at 01:29 PM
Alright, here it is - a warning. It's fine to debate the story. It's fine to debate other people's opinion to the story - rigorously. It's not fine to speculate on identities and make comments about someone's identities - real or internet, Some people use internet "handles" on here and some people use their real names. Debate the post not the person.
jimmie July 20, 2012 at 09:26 PM
Thanks Jason Massad.
jimmie July 21, 2012 at 03:03 AM
Hmmm..guess no one at city of dunwoody wants to explain what happened to the Wilson report on their website. Their for 5+ weeks, then they refuse to publish Bonsers response then the 5+ week free shot comes to an end. Guess they realized the defamation risk..or maybe its still there and I just can't find it. Our "open" government at work! Hope this all is dismissed soon!
What goes around comes around July 21, 2012 at 03:46 AM
Jimmie-for God's sake STOP. You could not look more irrational. It's not "defamation" if the accusations are true. There is no conspiracy here. What there is instead is a need and a desire to hold our public officials to a higher standard. Like it or not, there is not a chance in hell that this will just "go away" as you desire. I'm done reading your insane rants now. Have a great life.
jimmie July 21, 2012 at 07:23 PM
What goes around. I have a great life thanks. The folks you need to know understand the procedural and legal morass well enough to do the right thing you presume truth when truth isn't proven at all. Cheers. Not going anywhere on your account
mr excitement July 21, 2012 at 11:56 PM
Jimmie, you keep asking on this blog about why the Wilson report was removed from the city website. Nice try at trying to plant a different story, but the report is still there and always has been. You have to click on "see more news" on the city website news entries to see the older items. And there it is.
jimmie July 22, 2012 at 01:36 AM
I stand corrected. As I indicated in earlier posts, it might be there but I didn't see it. Begs the BIGGER question once again, why is it disclosable and her response not?
mr excitement July 22, 2012 at 01:48 AM
Wilson's report was out before an ethics complaint was filed. Bonser's filing was after the ethics complaint process began. You should read the law about when stuff like this can and cannot be released.
jimmie July 22, 2012 at 02:05 AM
I did Mr...and it shouldn't have been released as it was an investigatory report that they won;t even post a response too before the ethics complaint was filed. Just watch the facts unfold. Cheers. Moneys on Dr. Bonser

Boards

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
See more »