Dunwoody Council to Meet Monday on Ethics Officer

The board must hire an ethics officer for it to be used by the Ethics Board in an ongoing matter that alleges city officials violated rules.

The Duwnoody City Council will meet Monday to discuss the hiring of a hearing officer that could preside in an ongoing city ethics hearing that - at this point - involves all of the City Council.

Councilwoman Adrian Bonser was the focal point of ethics charge when a spring investigative report named her as a leaker of confidential city information.

Since then, she has filed counter complaints naming all other members of the city council for meeting in an unauthorized closed session.

A hearings office, which would need to be approved by the city council, could rule on evidence that will become a part of the ethics process if it moves forward through the Ethics Board.

The Ethics Board has said it will meet in September to decide the veracity of all of the complaints.

Meanwhile, Police Chief Billy Grogan will receive recognition for reaping an award for an innovative program that teaches Dunwoody teens to drive defensively.

In other business, Brent Walker, parks manager, will brief council on a $100,000 grant the city could reap for a trail for Brook Run Park. Building trails in the park is an ongoing effort.

Council meets at 7 p.m. in council chambers. A work session begins at 6 p.m.

Rob August 27, 2012 at 05:10 PM
How about the memo Henegan submitted trying to keep this away from the public eye? That should be questioned as well!
Jason Massad August 28, 2012 at 11:29 AM
What memo? Post it or don't allege it. Not coo and getting close to violasting the "terms of use" Tsk.
Rob August 28, 2012 at 01:29 PM
Just quoting from your own story: http://dunwoody.patch.com/articles/heneghan-filed-complaint-before-ethics-investigation-was-released <quote> Heneghan suggested that the report be sent directly to the Board of Ethics, which would seem to protect it from public disclosure.<quote> Perhaps I broke the first rule of Dunwoody, don`t say anything about Henegan... even when it`s true :(
Jason Massad August 29, 2012 at 09:18 AM
Rob, well done. I applaud your research and knowing your stuff. Heneghan and I are not professionally close, Let's be clear, this is not reporting, and it would be lame to use as it was. I think two things are being mixed here in the mind of most people. One: the city ethics rules say that materials and ensuing fallout, are secret, protected,- whatever - AFTER a complaint has been filed. In this case, the investigation was launched prior to the complaint. One could argue, cogently I'd say, that the investigation that named Bonser and Anderson could be seen that this pair was NOT able to work behind the scenes because the investigation was public. Maybe that's good; maybe that's bad. I'm no ump. Next. State law on open records. Much, much broader. It can be used as justification to protect ALL investigative materials including the report. I've been told by lawyers that know their open records stuff; this law is usually used on other matters. But ... there's nothing to say it couldn't have been done here. Absolutely nothing. The rationale is to get people to speak freely. No reporting here, I think Heneghan saw a window to protect this report, took it - and lost. And I've seen some asides that Heneghan is not the open guy he claims. Let's be clear, he streams council meetings (when the city's own video software is spotty.) I'd be careful poking at his motives or morals. I mean who is the guy that tirelessly rights a blog on city events weekly?
Rob August 29, 2012 at 12:33 PM
Good read Jason, well articulated!


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 »