Source: NorthFulton.com

There are no facts to hide
August 09, 2013 | 10:04 PM

Hello, your comment about keeping the investigation secret is completely wrong. This is not a criminal investigation by the DA but a non criminal investigation by a private law firm. Of course we have the right to know what is going on since we as taxpayers are paying for it and it involves an elected official of our city. The result of the investigation, if anything legitimate comes of it, would not be criminal charges but a removal from office not jail time.

When Bill Clinton or Richard Nixon were up for impeachment the charges and accusations were very public. No hiding and there should be no hiding now. Iran Contra scandal the same way, etc. etc.

In fact, if there was really anything material to this matter a local private law firm would not be doing the digging but rather the FBI or GBI or similar agency.

As best I can tell our city council is made up of overgrown micro managers who don't like the fact the mayor might not agree or support their every position. So what? This is politics.

The Mayor does not work for the city council. He is independently elected by the people of Johns Creek. If the people don't like what he is doing then the people can vote the mayor out. Instead, it appears the city council is trying to trump up some charges to have the excuse for an removal from office or to sully his name right before an election.

Does Obama do what Congress wants all the time? Heck Obama won't even instruct the Department of Justice to defend Federal laws he does not agree with even though they are the law of the land! I have heard of no charge against the mayor of intentionally violating a Johns Creek law. Does Governor Deal toe the line of whatever the GA legislature thinks is their "policy"? Answer- No.

I could be dead wrong and perhaps there really is meat to this investigation. But the fact that the City Council can barely even explain the issue uses vague generalities means to me there is no real issue. To initiate the investigation of a elected official who may also be a political opponent without detailed charges or accusations is open to rife political maneuvering and that appears to be the case here.

If the final finding is the mayor for example still discussed or advocated for things like a bridge that the city counsel decided against is not improper. That's just politics by an independently elected official advocating for what he believe in. By comparison, no matter what Congress passes President Obama is under no obligation to agree with it or not fight to overturn it. This happens all the time in a democracy.

I am not an insider and are not allied with any of the parties involved but I can say that the decisions and approach of our city counsel on this matter make me think they are the ones that should be removed.

Robert
Newtown