No variable specified
Johns Creek residents criticize council’s investigation of mayor
by Nicole Dow
July 09, 2013 12:32 PM | 2742 views | 4 4 comments | 39 39 recommendations | email to a friend | print
At the first city council meeting since council unanimously voted to launch an investigation into actions of Mayor Mike Bodker, Johns Creek residents spoke up Monday expressing their disapproval.

Residents aired their frustrations about council’s decision not to discuss the details, the cost to taxpayers and the negative public perception brought to the city.

David Rich said the investigation — which is being handled by law firm Wilson, Morton and Downs at a cost of $185 an hour — seems to be a waste of money.

“Why are we spending my money and the other citizens’ money to hire someone sort of on an open-ended, what appears to me to be a witch hunt?” he asked.

Resident Wayne Carrel described the investigation as a “waste of taxpayer dollars from a council that has promised over and over not to waste taxpayer dollars.” Councilmembers’ decision not to specify what actions of the mayor were under scrutiny also did not sit right with him.

“I feel like you’re working behind closed doors in secrecy with a council that was to be so very, very transparent,” Carrel told councilmembers.

Resident Render Freeman said he believes airing “the dirty laundry” of Johns Creek has harmed the city and accomplishes nothing beyond wasting tax dollars.

“It occurs to me that I’m actually ashamed of the city council and the decision that was made to launch this generic investigation,” he said.

Though resident Mark Endres said he supports the investigation, he does not approve of the way it is being conducted.

“Tell the people what the investigation is about specifically,” he told councilmembers.

Resident Stephanie Endres called the infighting amongst elected officials embarrassing and undignified and said councilmembers owed it to the citizens to prove their claims against Bodker.

Councilmembers have kept quiet about the investigation under legal advisement, but Councilman Randall Johnson did move to have one piece of previously confidential information made public.

Council hired Political Law Group to conduct a research paper comparing the city’s ethics ordinance, its charter and state law with regards to the disclosure confidential information from executive sessions.

Bodker and councilmembers voted unanimously to waive the attorney-client privilege in order to make the report, which dates back to April 21, public.
Comments
(4)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
Holycow100
|
July 11, 2013
Moosa: What if there were criminal factors involved in this ? Wouldn't you want an investigation done before the election? I know that I would. I am not voting for MB anyway, but it would be nice to hear the charges before the election.
EJ Moosa
|
July 10, 2013
We have an upcoming election where if we the citizens disapprove of our Mayor, we can remove him ourselves.

This is indeed a waste of time and money.

It would appear that this is more about egos than about what is best for Johns Creek.

atsprtn
|
July 25, 2013
Mayor Bodker has cultivated the wrong climate within City Hall in the past few years. His desire to maintain power and avoid debate, let alone open debate is one of the main reasons he should not be re-elected. This is the local example of what happens when politicians become to entrenched in their positions for too long. The citizens of JC did not shed the grip of Fulton County to exchange that for a mere local form of lack of accountability.
Taxpayer1839
|
July 09, 2013
Why would anyone question the investigation? If the council had just cause ( which they seem to do) then on with the show.

As for revealing the nature of the violations, any one with some"smarts" would know that nothing is revealed to the public until the investigation is completed!
*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