Thursday, May 24, 2012

Bonser Denies Allegations

By Dan Whisenhunt
Dunwoody Reporter

Councilwoman Adrian Bonser on Thursday, May 24, blasted a report that alleges she leaked information from a closed meeting of the Dunwoody City Council.

She said the report unfairly targeted her, relying on misinformation. She called the report a waste of taxpayer money.
“All of us on the Council are grown ups, each with different life experiences and skills. We should have been able to talk to one another and work this out without drama and $50,000 expense,” Bonser said. “The investigation was needless and, used as a tool to try to discredit and defame my character. This investigation was no more than a nicely typed, biased regurgitation of essentially he said/she said ad hominem attacks.”
Click Dunwoody Reporter to read full story and full statement from Bonser.

1 comment:

Chip said...

King John's blog has moved on to other issues, and has "buried the lead" for understandable reasons. There is quite a lively thread of invective and calumny going on over at The Dunwoody Reporter blog, almost none of which has to do with Councilwoman Bonser. So, to that end I'm forwarding my comments on Adrian's "response" for the wider audience, without personal attack or innuendo.

My take on her response, for what it's worth.

1. She's entitled to transcripts and documentation, surely. She should request a hearing before the Ethics Board where this information would be presented.

2. No media said the investigation was sloppy or biased. They did say the report was poorly written in spots. We wise-ass local bloggers were the source of the claims of "bias" and "hidden agendas." None of us are bona-fide media sources.

3. Quoting Georgia law is a lame excuse. I don't care if the Mayor got up in Executive Session, donned a grass skirt and did a hula!; that's covered by executive privilege and should not be discussed outside of executive session. Ever. Her highlight that the email was several days after the disclosure fails to admit that she discussed personalities and motivations of members expressed at the meeting, which was privileged information.

At the time the meeting was convened everyone was told the matter was privileged. That statement was never rescinded. Unilateral action is not an acceptable response for an ethical person.

4. Council Meeting Minutes are, at best, sketchy and do not detail nuance. Again, let Councilwoman Bonser call for an Ethics Committee investigation, and let's all see.

5.The rest of her response is the sort of "he said, she said" ad hominem attack that she so ostensibly abhors.

Not very convincing to me. I say, if she wants to be an "adult" let her call for an ethics investigation to clear her name. Or, rather, be an adult and just say, "You're right. I made a mistake."

Either one works for me.