Presumption of guilt is sickening
September 27, 2013 | 12:46 PM

This investigation is so obviously a political smear campaign designed to benefit Miller and the other council members aligned with her. Thankfully, we have one voice of reason on council in Kelly Stewart who is not afraid to stand up for what's right and fair. Bodker has not been formally charged with ANYTHING, and yet council is demanding all kinds of personal information. I didn't even know he and his wife had been separated (nor did I need to), but now it all makes sense why council wants more personal information. It only gives them ammunition to smear him even further. Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe Mr. Bodker doesn't want his personal cell phone information made public because it could be used against him in a divorce proceeding, should one ever come to pass? It appears Miller and the other vindictive council members have Bodker right where they want him because so many foolish simpleton voters will just assume he's guilty of wrongdoing and vote with Miller and friends. It's no secret around town that she's had her eye on that Mayor job for years now. Adding to that, Bodker has publicly disagreed with council on a few issues, so I suspect she and the others have been waiting for their opportunity to pounce. Marital woes and a pending re-election provided the perfect opportunity to bring him down in the most public and vicious way. Do you really think Miller and her aligned council members care that this embarrasses our citizens and our city? Obviously not, their thirst for power seems to have overshadowed the common good, otherwise they would just shut up and CHARGE him already if they had any proof of wrongdoing. Since they have not, I can only assume this investigation is a taxpayer-funded digging expedition. Unfortunately, the damage to Bodker's reputation has already been done. Here's the bottom line for me: Bodker probably shouldn't have commented publicly if he disagreed with council, but there must be other ways council could have handled this in a less public and costly manner. Either they should have pursued an internal investigation or named their charges against Bodker at the outset so he could address the charges directly. In not formally charging him with any specific offense, it's my understanding council is violating city policy. How can this be allowed to stand?

Concerned Voter
Johns Creek