• Welcome!
    Logout|My Dashboard
  • June 3, 2015

Executive session leak source comes forward, points at Adrian Bonser - Dunwoody Crier: News

default avatar
Welcome to the site! Login or Signup below.
Not you?||
Logout|My Dashboard

Executive session leak source comes forward, points at Adrian Bonser

Font Size:
Default font size
Larger font size

Posted: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 11:05 am | Updated: 11:44 am, Wed Sep 19, 2012.

Six months after Bob Lundsten broke news on his blog that prompted a city council executive session leak investigation which has, to date, cost the city nearly $100,000, he has revealed his source.

Bonnie Brucker wrote a letter obtained by The Crier which states that she revealed details to Lundsten about the city’s plans for the PVC farm, details that Brucker said she heard from Adrian Bonser. Brucker’s letter was received by the city on Friday, Aug. 3.

Brucker wrote that she went to Bonser’s home on the evening of Friday, Feb. 3, to get a house key and instructions for house sitting. Bonser was leaving the following day on a vacation trip to New Zealand. Members of city council, including Bonser, met earlier that day in executive session.

“She (Bonser) began talking about the PVC Farm,” wrote Brucker. “She told me that negotiations were in progress to have John Wieland build housing units (duplexes I believe) on the property, the general price range and other details.”

After leaving Bonser’s home, Brucker wrote that she ran into Lundsten at a nearby gas station and broached the topic of the PVC farm to see if he had more information about the deal.

“Evidently he did not because he made no comment, but asked me if the information I gave him was discussed in executive session,” wrote Brucker.

Brucker wrote that she realized at that moment that Lundsten did not have prior knowledge of the transaction and that the information was not yet public.

“So the information he posted in his blog was based on information I had given him, and which was given to me by Adrian,” wrote Brucker.

Matthew Reeves, Bonser’s attorney wrote a letter to the Board of Ethics on Tuesday, Aug. 7 denouncing Brucker’s claims.

“Bob Lundsten’s blog entry and Ms. Bruckner’s prepared statement do not match,” wrote Reeves.

Reeves wrote that Lundsten’s blog post of Feb. 6 read as follows: “Within hours of the executive session, I received several calls informing what had taken place in that session. I then made several calls to confirm what I had been told (I did not ask any councilmen). Seems I was not the only one who knew what happened Friday morning.”

Reeves’ letter states that Brucker came to Bonser’s home at approximately 7:15 p.m. on Feb. 3 and that Bonser did not speak to Brucker about city business or executive session business. The letter from Reeves also states that Bonser’s husband, Brian, was in attendance and confirmed that the conversation between Adrian Bonser and Brucker was about house-sitting business, not city business.

According to Attorney Bob Wilson’s investigative report on the leak, Lundsten called Councilman John Heneghan from the Taste of Dunwoody event on the evening of Friday, Feb. 3. In that call, Lundsten reportedly told Heneghan that he knew about the sale of the 16 acres and John Wieland Homes involvement. Heneghan did not comment since he did not attend the executive session.

The Wilson report also states that Lundsten knew about the topic of the executive session meeting within hours of the meeting, and that Mayor Mike Davis began receiving calls about the meeting’s subject matter by mid-day on Feb. 3.

Reeves’ letter states that the Taste of Dunwoody event began at 7 p.m. on Feb. 3 and that the PVC farm was already being discussed at the event. Bonser did not attend the event as she was preparing to travel and was meeting with Brucker about house sitting, wrote Reeves.

In light of all the facts, wrote Reeves, including the fact that Lundsten’s blog entry was published days later on Feb. 6, Bonser is concerned that Brucker might have snooped through her personal papers when Brucker was house sitting, later divulging executive session information from Bonser’s private notes, to Brucker’s friend, Bob Lundsten.

“This house sitter’s belated alleged witness statement is too little, too late, and contradicts Bob Lundsten’s blog entry,” wrote Reeves. “Dr. Bonser renews her request for the complaint to be dismissed.”

Reeves’ letter to the Board of Ethics includes a statement that Lundsten was sent a demand letter to reveal his alleged source.

“Lundsten engaged counsel, who presumably wrote Ms. Brucker’s ‘statement’,” wrote Reeves.

Lundsten’s attorney, Kathryn M. Zickert, responded to the demand letter from Reeves and enclosed the letter from Brucker.

“Quite frankly, I cannot for the life of me understand the basis for your letter of July 31, 2012, directed to my friend and client Robert Lundsten,” wrote Zickert. “Since when does the failure to respond to an attorney’s demand constitute an “admission” of anything?”

Zickert wrote that this nonsense needs to end and that she was enclosing a statement from Bonnie Brucker who is the oh-so-mysterious “source.”

“I trust that my provision of this statement is fully responsive to your ‘demand’,” wrote Zickert.

Brucker’s letter states that she was not willing to remain silent after six months.

“It has become evident that unless I come forward, this situation will continue to drain the city coffers of much needed revenue, not to mention cause even more vitriol and divisiveness within our community,” wrote Brucker.

Members of the Board of Ethics are also expressing concern about the cost of this investigation. In meeting last week, Janet Webb, a member of the board, said that as long as someone else is footing the bill, this could go on a long time.

“I think this (process) needs to be efficient, practical and to the point,” said Webb.

The board also discussed adopting a newly drafted by-laws and procedures document, and scheduling future hearings.

The board made a few changes and then voted to adopt the by-laws and procedures document which was drafted by the city attorney and Richard Carothers, the board’s attorney.

Ethic charges were filed against all members of city council, the mayor, the former city attorney and the current city manager and the board has received multiple motions to dismiss these complaints. The board plans to first hold hearings on motions to dismiss ethics complaints. If ethics charges are not dismissed, then the board will schedule evidentiary hearings.

Initial hearings are not expected to begin until September.

© 2015 Dunwoody Crier. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

  • Discuss

Rules of Conduct

  • 1 Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language. PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
  • 2 Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
  • 3 Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
  • 4 Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
  • 5 Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
  • 6 Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.

Welcome to the discussion.


  • George posted at 10:55 am on Mon, Nov 5, 2012.

    George Posts: 1

    I recently met Mrs. Bonser who was more than willing to gossip and share details about this case. I was curious and started reading up on it along with the posts below. All I can say is this woman is a complete gossip drama nut case and I am glad I am not continuing to do business with her!

  • Robert Moses posted at 12:08 am on Sun, Aug 19, 2012.

    Robert Moses Posts: 34

    Ricky Bobby's logic makes sense. So does Bob's. I'd offer odds that the Ethics commission will see through the BS and throw out Bonser's frivolous and desperate counter charges. Her attempts to coerce everybody involved to lawyer up at taxpayer expense and drag this out in the press can only hurt Dunwoody.

  • Emily posted at 10:06 pm on Wed, Aug 15, 2012.

    Emily Posts: 2

    I am sickened by the behavior that Ms. Bonser is demonstrating. It is now clear that she is not in this for the interest of the City, but for her own personal motives, whatever they may be. The longer she holds office the longer this drags on and at a greater cost to our city, and for what? To arrive at a conclusion that is now obvious to most!

  • Bob posted at 12:29 am on Wed, Aug 15, 2012.

    Bob Posts: 8

    For the record, Ms Brucker and I were never asked to comment on this story before it ran in this mornings paper.

    I did not reveal a source, the Ms Brucker chose to come forward.

    I did not send Ms Brucker's statement to the ethics committee, I sent it to Ms Bonser's attorney after receiving a "demand letter"

    Ms Zickert handled only the delivery of the statement to Mr. Reeves, for me.

    Ms Brucker statement is her statement and was not written by anyone other than Ms . Brucker. I do not believe Ms Zickert and Ms. Brucker have ever met.

    The suggestion that Ms Brucker did anything improper is an attempt to try to discredit a citizen who did not want to be in this spotlight in the first place,knowing the personal attacks that Ms Bonser was going to launch,

    Just more deflection by the Bonser camp to take the focus off the only real ethics charge out there and that is Ms Bonser leaked information discussed at executive session.

    And who gave the Reeves letter to the Crier? Seems the person accused of leaking the original story is once again leaking information to try to gain some advantage.
    Now I do not know that for a fact why doesno't someone ask Ms Bonser.

  • kidlitwriter posted at 5:27 pm on Tue, Aug 14, 2012.

    kidlitwriter Posts: 1

    I believe there's another issue here. This article quotes portions of letters from two attorneys and Ms. Brucker. The supposed corroboration came from Brian Bonser, husband of Councilwoman Bonser. Since it is not claimed to be written to someone, I assume that means he stated the information. Where then, are the corroborating statements from Ms. Brucker herself? Did The Crier even speak to her about this? Where's the journalistic integrity in that? This article feels very one-sided to me and that biased approach only serves to polarize people. I'm considering discontinuing my readership of this "paper."

  • Ricky Bobby posted at 5:00 pm on Tue, Aug 14, 2012.

    Ricky Bobby Posts: 8

    Oh, and thanks for breaking the story Sue and Mr. Williams. One other thing I'd like to know. How did The Crier obtain a copy of the letter that was just sent on Tuesday August 7th to the Ethics Board by Mr. Mathews - nice job on that!

    Besides Mr. Mathews, the City Clerk, and Ms. Bonser, no one else should have a copy. The City won't release since it was submitted directly to the Ethics Board and does not fall under the Freedom of Information request until after the Ethics Board concludes its review. I doubt the City Clerk would leak it. If Mr. Mathews did it he would violate attorney client privilege, so I can only think of two other sources. And they're married to one another and have a vested interest in getting out in front of this to do damage control and put their spin on this new development!

    Why can't people understand that while you can fool some of the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, you can't fool all of the people all of the time! Shake and bake...............

  • Ricky Bobby posted at 1:40 pm on Tue, Aug 14, 2012.

    Ricky Bobby Posts: 8

    All evidence points to Ms. Bonser's guilt. There's no way Ms. Brucker could provide the information Friday evening unless she was told by Ms. Bonser. You would believe that if she had access to Bonser's "personal papers" that evening Ms. Bonser would have asserted that in her attorney's letter. That leaves the only way she could have known was by Adrian telling her that evening. She wouldn't have access to Ms. Bonser's "personal papers" to "maybe snoop through" until the following day when the Bonsers left town. Mr. Mathews defense and story fall apart as it was already documented in Bob Wilson's report that Concilman Heneghan spoke to Bob Lundsten Friday evening on the phone while Lundsten was at the Taste of Dunwoody event, with Lundsten telling him he knew about the deal. I know others would testify to that as well.

    I don't think Adrian's spin team can spin her out of this now. Her counter claim against the remaining Council members and staff is a travesty and the lowest smear campaign possible - so she can say to them "while you have ethics charges filed against you."

    I hope the citizens of this town will rally and demand her immediate resignation. Six months of lies, denial, deceit, intimidation and close to $100,000 in expenses. We deserve better.


'Like' us on Facebook