Ethics Board Upholds Complaints Against Bonser, Davis

A four-hour meeting of the ethics board did not dismiss a complaint that Bonser may have leaked information from city executive sessions nor a complaint against Davis that he breached city ethics by asking Bonser to resign.

Councilwoman Adrian Bonser and Mayor Mike Davis still have some ethical business to deal with.

After a four-hour meeting Tuesday, the city ethics board didn't dismiss that Bonser may have leaked information from a February city executive session and that Davis breached the city's code by asking her to resign.

The board did dismiss Bonser's complaint, which came about after she was named in the leak, that the city council held an unlawful executive session Feb. 3. The complaint named the entire city council besides Bonser and also former City Attorney Brian Anderson and City Manager Warren Hutmacher.

None of it was done unanimously. In the quasi-legal proceedings, issues such as jurisdiction, what can be discussed in closed sessions and rules of evidence have all been discussed.

The board voted 3-2 not to dismiss the complaint against Bonser. Janet Webb and Bill Blaske dissented.

"I had some problems with the Wilson report, frankly," Blaske said, referring to the investigation by Bob Wilson that named Bonser as a source of the leak.

The board voted 4-1 to dismiss the claims against the city council, Anderson and Hutmacher, but to keep the complaint that the mayor may have breached ethics by asking Bonser to resign, which he said at the meeting he did ask.

Blaske was the dissenter.

The board also agreed to send the matter to "alternative resolution dispute" instead of scheduling hearings on the spot. The board did agree to hold hearings on the matters if the resolution was not successsful.

The hearing was to be scheduled, according to the city's ethics rules, no more than 30 days out. That clock will start on Monday.

Rob September 19, 2012 at 11:53 AM
City of ScumWoody..............Yawn
Michael Caldwell September 19, 2012 at 04:29 PM
Rob, that comment is totally uncalled-for. These are lay people in their first few years of running a new City. Knowing all the parties, I doubt whether either is guilty of any real ethics breach. At most each had a misunderstanding of their respective duties and rights. Their duties and rights are partially determined by the Georgia Open Meetings Act which can be pretty confusing --especially to non-lawyers. The rules of executive session confidentiality (which are not statutory and can be quite ambiguous) are impacted by the question of whether it was proper to hold the property purchase or sale discussion in executive session in the first place. I think both sides fired the ethics gun a bit too fast. Let's have each party go to his/her respective corner and cool off. These growing pains are a tempest in a tea pot.
Milton Friedman September 20, 2012 at 01:12 AM
Rob is Mr. Glass Half Empty. Michael, I respectfully disagree that councilwoman Bonser was unaware of her actions. Do I think she is now regretful, but too proud to admit her actions - YES! In my humble opinion a full hearing will bring out all the facts and her reputation will be even worse than it is now. The arguments presented by her attorney last evening have ZERO foundation. Example - Ms. Brucker had access to the Bonser house from Saturday, February 4th and on for several weeks while the Bonsers were out of town. Fact, Friday late afternoon / early evening news of the meeting was already circulating outside of Executive Council. Mr. Lundsten is on record for having spoken to Councilmen Heneghan and Shortal regarding the "rumored" development that night, Feb 3rd, at "The Taste of Dunwoody" event. So, if the information wasn't inadvertently passed by Ms. Brucker to Mr. Lundsten as she states in her letter, then where did the information come from? No one else, other than Lundsten was contacting council members for confirmation. There is no other explanation. Her second defense point is that the two meetings of Executive Session were held illegally. If so, why didn't she state her objections at either meeting? Why did the then City Attorney offer the opinion that it was due to the purchase of the additional acreage across the street? She's run out of rabbit holes to run in to hide.
Rob September 20, 2012 at 01:48 PM
In relation to the previous two posts: Spammers opinions really mean nothing....
Milton Friedman September 21, 2012 at 02:14 AM
Rob - help me understand where my points fail and my post is spam.. Because I call you out that makes my opinion spam? And the facts presented......spam? I'd say that makes your position a failed one, and your logic defeated. Sorry it didn't work out for you, but the truth is stronger than all of us combined and always prevails.
Adrian September 23, 2012 at 04:42 AM
Just an FYI for those who don't already know; Milton Friedman is in fact Kerry de Vallett. What a great disguise Kerry!
Rob September 23, 2012 at 12:03 PM
Not really, but "Adrian" is the SPAMMER!! How many different names now, 20, 30???
Buster Brown September 23, 2012 at 09:18 PM
Milton err.... Kerry, I do not understand how you make the leap that Dr. Bonser is guilty. The Wilson Report does not prove Dr. Bonser's guilt nor, her involvement whatsoever. According to Wilson's report, Mike Davis received phone calls midday- presumably noon. Dr. Bonser did not meet with Ms. Brucker until that evening. How is it possible that, Dr. Bonser is named the leaker when, the information was "out there" long before she had contact with Ms. Brucker? Other baffling facts in this case: The Council filed ethics charges against Dr. Bonser stating specifically that she leaked information "regarding the purchase of property." Why then does the Wilson Report specifically states that there was no mention of "the purchase of the 19 acres" - see page 11. The entire Wilson Report was an investigation into who leaked information regarding the "sale of property," not the purchase of property. Dr. Bonser contends that the Executive Session meeting was illegal. This may explain why Council had to change their tune and, file a charge against Dr.Bonser for the only legal part of the Executive Session- the purchase of property. I'm curious to see this case more forward to a hearing. I am particularly curious to hear about the two different affidavits for the February meeting that Dr. Bonser's attorney presented on Tues. Altering or falsifying an affidavit is a felony. Our Mayor may have some 'splaining to do.
Rob September 24, 2012 at 02:29 AM
And yet....more spam!


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