No variable specified
Johns Creek Councilwoman Kelly Stewart attempts to suspend investigation into Mayor Mike Bodker
by Nicole Dow
September 24, 2013 12:31 PM | 2638 views | 12 12 comments | 46 46 recommendations | email to a friend | print
Johns Creek councilwoman Kelly Stewart sought Monday to suspend the city council’s investigation into Mayor Mike Bodker until after the November elections, but she did not receive any support from her follow council members.

The council did not even vote on the matter as no other members would second Stewart’s motion.

Stewart, who was absent from the June 17 meeting when council voted to launch the investigation, told Councilman Randall Johnson she had no idea why council is even doing an investigation.

“I question timing of everything,” she said. “I have not had one person come to me with any kind of allegation, question or statement, and since I have been on this council, I have not seen anything that has brought [Bodker’s] actions into question.”

Johnson told Stewart allegations against the mayor had been brought forth by citizens, members of the business community and city staff.

“I felt it was my obligation to bring [the allegations] forward,” he said. “I’m not going to sweep something like this under the rug.”

Johnson added, “If [Bodker] didn’t do anything wrong — great. I think that’s wonderful. But then bring the information forward. I don’t know why he’s not bringing the information.”

Though Johnson implied some allegations had been brought directly to him, he did not disclose the individuals who made them when asked by Stewart.

Bodker recused himself Monday from all discussion related to the ongoing investigation but said the next morning that he felt the investigation is a run around the city’s ethics ordinance.

“Our ethics ordinance has a specific prohibition against the pursuit of ethics filings from the time that qualifying starts until the election is certified,” he said. “The reason for that is to prevent an ethics filing from being used as a weapon during a political campaign.”

However, when asked if he would like the investigation to be suspended until after the elections, Bodker said he did not.

“I want to see them actually be proven wrong for not only launching the investigation but for the entire way that this thing has been gone about,” he said.

The municipal elections will be held Nov. 5. Former councilwoman and mayor pro tem Bev Miller is running against Bodker for mayor.

Comments
(12)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
TerryCr
|
September 27, 2013
One lone council member defending Mike Bodker.Something is rotten here.

I trust the city council on this one. I do not trust the one lone one that is defending Mike Bodker.
LindaBR
|
September 26, 2013
Think about everything that some of these people saying and then think about "WHY"!

Kelly Stewart doesn't want to pursue Bodker's investigation. WHY? Does this sound as suspicious to you as it does to me?
Randy, Karen and Bev
|
September 26, 2013
My friends and I are voting for Randall Johnson and Karen Richardson for city council and, of course, Bev Miller for mayor.

They have all done a very good job. It's important that they also have years of experience in handling the city.

Newcomers just don't have any of the experience like these three do.

We am proud to vote for them this November.
|
September 25, 2013
The solution is to vote in Lenny Zaprowski and Cori Davenport to replace Randall and Karen. Otherwise this tension continues and the city does not move forward.

The investigation is a political stunt using taxpayer dollars to fund the negative portion of Bev's campaign to run against Bodker. Kelly realizes this as do most of the citizens of Johns Creek that are paying attention.

Kelly has stated at council meetings that she has seen no unethical behavior therefore does not see a reason for an investigation.

The City has an ethics ordinance in place to deal with unethical behavior. All they needed to do was to follow the ordinance or call the DA if they felt something was going on.

Instead they create this political dog and pony show to smear the Mayor thereby increasing the chances for Bev to win... on taxpayer dollars. Right now to the tune of 250,000.00 plus including the special election created by Bev Miller by not resigning her seat earlier.

Only the truth huh?
|
October 09, 2013
Silence Do gooder, If you read today's news there are NO extra fees for the spring election. Learn to get your facts straight before you spew untruths!
Jane Doe
|
September 25, 2013
I worked with Kelly Stewart in the past and this follows a pattern of behavior. Too concerned with power plays and the game of politics. A poor representative for the city.
cognitive dissonance
|
September 24, 2013
If Bodker wants to bring the investigation to an end, why is he dillydallying in giving the council the information they need? Uh, never mind, I know why!
Sandra Leigh
|
September 24, 2013
Gee, I wonder why Stewart didn't vote YAY!? LOL

Stewart seems to not want this investigation to be concluded. She misses meetings and then cries foul!

It makes one wonder why ALL of the other members voted FOR this investigation EXCEPT STEWART ( and I quote from the above article) after "allegations against the mayor had been brought forth by citizens, members of the business community and city staff."

If after receiving complaints, it is the duty of the council to proceed with an investigation. Too much corruption in politics today. Kudos to the council members.

JCCitizen
|
September 24, 2013
Wow...bombshells at Johns Creek City Council Meeting

September 24, 2013 | 11:43 AM

The "attorney/investigator" for Bev and the City Council was forced to publicly admit HE LIED LAST WEEK ABOUT BODKER not cooperating! At the council meeting last night, he was forced to tell the truth on the record during session. Turns out... it had only been 15 days since they officially requested the documents from the Mayor, not the famous 40 quoted over and over last week in front of the news cameras. He was also asked then if it had been 15 days why the "emergency special meeting" two days before the regular meeting to compell a supoena? After lots of dodging and spinning, he finally said something very close to "because I asked for it and I wanted the documents". HUH? We had two council persons request and second an over 1k emergency meeting on those grounds? Sounds like the attorney fell on the sword for all of them. And there was more... much more. When questioned, it also appears that the "investigator" was hired and began interviewing BEFORE the City Council met and voted to authorize the hiring of an attorney. He was asked "since you work for the city council, who contacted you and authorized you to begin an investigation"? Drom roll... answer: City Mgr John Kachmar! Questions were also raised about why there wasn't an RFQ for the hiring of an attorney? Then about how Randall Johnson may know Bob Wilson or his law firm and whether Johnson has any direct relationships with the firm. I'm guessing someone will make sure the public gets a specific answer to that soon. It's impossible to recap all the seedy info and unanswered questions that came out last night about this investigation. Oh, and Karen Richardson was accused of violating the City Charter last night by voting to fund an organization that she sits on the Board of (you can't do that). Not pretty for the council last night at all. As for me, after seeing and hearing everything, there is no longer any doubt in my mind that this is entire dubious affair is a an orchestrated political ploy to get Bev Miller elected by tarnishing the reputation of the Mayor. It's ugly, and it's very expensive for all us. I forgot... the allegations I saw out here that it was Mike Bodker's misuse of the police department... the council said on the record last night the investigation had nothing to do with that. Say what? So whoever that was beating the "Bodker bullies and misuses the police" drum can now stand officially standed corrected by the City Council themselves.



JCCitizen

JC
GH321
|
September 25, 2013
Thank you, I have attended a council meeting before and it was clear who would be running for Mayor. It is disgraceful the council thinks the citizens of JC can't see this mudslinging for what it is.

We are footing a bill for an investigation in which we have no idea what it is for. I think all of the council members need to be replaced. They clearly are representing their own agenda. Maybe the cost of this investigation should come from the salaries of those who voted for it.

Why not look into all of them considering the amount of zoning changes and approvals for building massive subdivisions, and complexes regardless of the ability of the roads to handle the increase in traffic.

You throw a wide net, you're bound catch something. I think that's what they had in mind...just maybe they could find something, and if not, well the damage would be done by the accusations alone. Shame the JC has come to this. They should all be replaced.
LindaBR
|
September 25, 2013
Oh let it go all ready. The investigator apologized. The city council wasn't to blame for the investigator's goof. You are making ugly comments.

Did you read what was sent from the city council today. Mike Bodker did this to himself. What goes around comes around, my grandmother used to say. God rest her soul. Sure enough Mike Bodker is in hot water.
Yeah right
|
October 09, 2013
Your friend Bodker is still NOT COPERATING with the city council. How many days is it now? So your point is moot. Bodker is the one causing all this taxpayer money to go down the drain!
*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