No variable specified
Johns Creek council subpoenas Bodker's cell phone, property rental records
by Nicole Dow
September 20, 2013 12:35 PM | 2902 views | 14 14 comments | 56 56 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Johns Creek Mayor Mike Bodker
Johns Creek Mayor Mike Bodker
slideshow
Bob Wilson, the investigator hired by the Johns Creek City Council to look into actions of Mayor Mike Bodker, will serve subpoenas for Bodker’s personal cell phone and certain rental agreements as part of the ongoing investigation.

City council voted 4-1 in a special called meeting Thursday for the city clerk to issue the subpoenas and to allow Wilson’s firm to execute them. Councilwoman Kelly Stewart was the sole opposing vote, and Bodker was absent from the meeting.

“The investigation that is underway has reached a point where I do not have the cooperation to the level that I needed,” Wilson said in explaining why he requested the subpoenas.

Wilson requested Bodker’s cell phone records on allegations he has conducted city business on his personal phone since becoming mayor. The rental documentation requested is related to Bodker’s lease of properties at Johns Creek Walk and Amberly Lakes.

Councilman Randall Johnson said the lease information was requested because there are allegations Bodker has accepted gratuities from lease deals and voted a certain way on projects brought before council as a result.

“Elected officials shouldn’t be able to enrich themselves [from city business],” Johnson said.

He said the mayor has not been transparent.

“It’s frustrating because … this [investigation] is dragging on and it’s dragging on because Mike Bodker is refusing to cooperate,” Johnson said. “I don’t understand what he’s hiding.”

Councilwoman Karen Richardson said, “For the life of me, I don’t understand why if you could put the information out there that would potentially clear your name, why you wouldn’t do it.”

Though Bodker was absent from Thursday’s meeting, he explained to the Neighbor the next morning that he has the rental documents requested but has not handed the information over because he stands on the principle that he should not have to prove anything.

“In America, the burden of proof lies on the accuser, not the accused,” he said. “I still haven’t actually been accused.”

Bodker said his attorney has been in correspondence with Wilson’s firm questioning under what conditions a person can be investigated and personal privacy can be invaded.

Concerning his cell phone records, Bodker said they only show calls that were made and received but cannot detail if he was actually on the phone or what was said during the conversations.

“What does that prove?” he asked.

Bodker said he has many fundamental problems about how the investigation launched and is offended about what has transpired.

Comments
(14)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Voting 4 Miller
|
October 08, 2013
I just saw the videos of the city council meeting.

It was shown that the council did what it is supposed to do in cases of impropriety or unethical behavior. The council followed the rules of the city charter.

Good for them! They followed the rules of this investigation according to the rules of our city.
Johns creek 4
|
October 08, 2013
At the last city meeting some of the issues with Bodker was brought forward. @Boggling There was NO fraud on any other city members. The mayor and Stewart just seem to want to shift blame on others rather than themselves.
Taxpayer1839
|
October 04, 2013
NO ONE knows what many of the charges are against Bodker. How about we wait and see before saying he is free from guilt. There have been charges briught forth. This is not make believe!
Boggling...
|
September 27, 2013
The absolute innacuracy of many statements on these posts suggests a wide spread epidemic of ignorance or intentional attempts to manipulate the public with misinformation, inuendo and other unscrupulous remarks. If you are so convinced that Mayor Bodker is guilty, why not let the evidence speak for itself? Granted, this inquiry has yet to yield any wrong doing by the Mayor and oddly has only pointed out incompetence and possible fraud by the council, but still, let the truth lead the way. Don't pave the way to a conclusion with lies.
Disturbing...
|
September 27, 2013
WITCH HUNT: 1) a rigorous campaign to round up or expose dissenters on the pretext of safeguarding the welfare of the public, 2) An investigation carried out to uncover subversive activities but actually used to harass and undermine those with differing views.
sunshine girl
|
September 26, 2013
I, too, find it unsettling that at both the Federal and now the local level, our elected officials are unwilling to specify their reasons for taking extraordinary measures.

The Johns Creek council has never enumerated the charges against the mayor. They have floated the black cloud and tried to paint him with the brush of corruption, just before it is time to campaign for re-election.

They ask the citizens of Johns Creek to "trust them that this is not politically motivated..." yet one of their own is running against the mayor!

When it looks and sounds (and smells) like a politically motivated smear campaign, it is incredible for them to expect the citizens to believe it is not.

Why were these issues not dealt with at the time the council says they became aware of them? Where was all this "concern"? Councilman Johnson says "the mayor has not been transparent." What about the council's transparency about this witch hunt?
Readersa
|
October 08, 2013
You haven't been to the last city council meeting, have you Sunshine Girl?
the seeker of truth
|
September 20, 2013
I have a question to Kelly Stewart. Why Ms. Stewart are you so adamantly opposed to the investigation? Are you part of the solution or are you part of the problem? And please don't say it is the "moral" thing to do. We are talking about violations of the city charter, not what color shoes he should buy.
Hoochfamily
|
September 21, 2013
Kelly Stewart has openly stated her reasons for not supporting this investigation. She has said she has not personally witnessed the unethical behavior the others allege, and she also doesn't understand why they are investigating things from 2007 now.

Seems like sound judgement on Stewarts part to me.

She raises an excellent question too. Why did the council not do their "duty" to follow up on what they claim are citizen complaints for seven years? Bev has been on the council since 2006. She had plenty of time. Why is NOW all of the sudden the right time to fulfill their obligation/duty? If the alleged "complaintant" waited seven years to complain, why is that?

Trying to put the pieces of this investigation together in a way that makes any real since is very difficult.

hoochfamily2013
|
September 20, 2013
It's interesting that this article only quotes the council members that voted for the supeona and the investigator. Kelly Stewart asked why it was necessary to hold a special session last night that costs the taxpayers a minimum of 1k when there is a regular council meeting on Monday. In reply, Karen Richardson stammered without an answer then deferred to someone else who gave no answer to the question. Their response began with either "I don't know" or "I'm not sure" followed by suposition and ending with something almost identical to "I'd ASSUME there was some kind of urgency". Question wasn't answered. If it's necessary for two council persons to agree/request a special session for it to occur, how can it be that there weren't two council persons there last night that could give an anser to WHY IS THIS SPECIAL MEETING NECESSARY TODAY? It's unbelievable how much this council can do without providing any reason or justification. At this point, I'm assuming it was a taxpayer funded political manuever to grab today's media stories away from the Mayors fundraiser last night hosted by Mayors of Milton, Alpharetta, Roswell, Senator Branch, et, etc, etc. back to.
the seeker of truth
|
September 22, 2013
I don't believe for one minute the answer Stewart supplied. I didn't fall off the apple truck yesterday!

I don't think that regular meetings are the place to discuss the investigation. Regular meetings usually consist of the other things on the agenda in Johns Creek that need attending to.

Bodker has wasted enough of the city's time and energy. Subpoena him for all the records & check them out. Then if wrongs were done, well you know what happens then!
Homeowner in J. C.
|
September 20, 2013
I am in agreement with the City Council on this. If a person(s) came forward with complaints and allegations about the mayor, who would ignore them! No one unless you were personally involved!

The mayor was involved with the formation and setting down of the rules when the city first started. Now he wants to change them for his sole benefit? I don't think so!
Homeowners
|
September 22, 2013
We are tired of hearing Mr. Bodker say that he doesn't know the charges.

They were in many news articles; threatening the livelihood of policemen, conflict of interest issues, sneaking behind the council's backs are a few of them.

Of course, he knows the charges. He is just keeping mum. Which I am sure his attorney advised him to do.
MNNjr
|
September 27, 2013
Stewart didn't personally witness unethical behavior? So, what makes her think that just because she didn't witness any, that there wasn't any.

Gee whiz,that is like saying that I haven't witnessed any murders in Atlanta. That doesn't mean that there weren't any.

In fact, there are lots of murders in Atlanta and elsewhere.
*We welcome your comments on the stories and issues of the day and seek to provide a forum for the community to voice opinions. All comments are subject to moderator approval before being made visible on the website but are not edited. The use of profanity, obscene and vulgar language, hate speech, and racial slurs is strictly prohibited. Advertisements, promotions, spam, and links to outside websites will also be rejected. Please read our terms of service for full guides