Uncategorized

Media Exposure of Gambling Dark Money’s Damage to Democracy

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Using Dark Money, Gambling Corporations are mounting a Pearl-Harbor-style assault on our democracy . . . the likes of which we’ve never seen in Georgia.  And if successful, we will see a proliferation of similar onslaughts in future elections.  The consent of the governed will be effectively blotted out by the purveyors of Dark Money.  Now is the time for ordinary citizens to oppose Special Interests that are using deception and manipulation to finagle their agents into the state legislature.  Don’t let gambling PACs choose your representatives! 

So why the Pearl Harbor analogy?  Isn’t that over-the-top?  Not in the least.  This Gambling Industry PAC-Attack is a huge assault and it is a surprise assault.  $10M+ (and growing) is being injected into 30+ selected state legislative races . . . that’s $300,000+ per race.  And based on what I’ve seen (e.g., 18 PAC-financed mailers . . . so far), District 47 is seeing this level of spending.  The state PAC behind this dark money attack (Republican-tilted American Conservative Fund Action Georgia) is the largest Georgia PAC in both contributions and expenditures.  And when combined with the smaller Democrat-tilted American Future PAC (which traces its funding back to the same Win For America Super-PAC and the same gambling corporations as its conservative counterpart), the dark money pot tops $10M.  This is nearly twice the second biggest Georgia PAC, the Georgia Democratic Party, at $5.6M.  Why is this a sneak attack?  First, gambling is never mentioned in any campaign promotional media for candidates.  And gambling is never mentioned at the PACs’ websites.  Second, you must wade through three layers of PACs before you identify the malefactors:  three gambling corporations lurking at the 4th layer.  Third, these PACs were all established within the past 8 months.  (American Future, the Democrat gambling PAC, wasn’t registered in Georgia until April 17th.)  The recency element is important because there are time lags that watchdogs (like me) must deal with.  The intent of these PACs is to attack with minimal advance notice (just like a military attack) to maximize the element of surprise . . . perhaps people won’t notice or act until it’s too late. 

Fortunately, some watchdogs were paying attention.  Sentient reporters began sounding the alarm in early February.  Over a period of several weeks, the gambling corporations’ master plan was gradually revealed and exposed:  $41+M in gambling dark money to be spent on state legislative races in selected states where gambling is illegal, including Georgia, Alabama, and Texas.  By mid-April (before early voting started on April 27th), several excellent articles had been published by national media that shone a bright light on the Gambling Dark Money invasion.  And since then, articles have abounded that expose the Gambling Industry’s plot to hijack elections.  Unfortunately, in some cases, the media reports read like an obituaries or post-mortems, reflecting Gambling Dark Money’s deathblows in numerous state legislative races.  In Georgia, only two of the Gambling PACs’ candidates failed to win outright or else advance to the run-off.  That, citizens, shows the overriding influence of this Dark Money.  Hopefully, District 47 voters will more discerning . . . at least, now that they are aware of the situation and the clear-and-present dangers.

So don’t let any politician tell you that he didn’t know what was going on.  Nobody is that clueless.  “American Conservative Fund” (or “American Future” in Democratic races) appears on all promotional materials for the Gambling PACs’ anointed candidates.  To ascertain the truth, one need only insert “American Conservative Fund” (or its variants) into one’s favorite search engine . . . or use easily searchable online state and federal campaign filing repositories . . . or both.

I could lay out the whole ugly Dark Money story for you here, but I won’t because other watchdogs have already done my work for me.  Following are 37 articles plus several other useful/interesting links.  I have organized the articles by geographical groupings and chronologically within a grouping.  For each article, I provide the title, the publishing date, and a website link.  (Unfortunately, a few articles require a subscription.)  The titles of articles that I think are especially compelling are in bold, red font.  The first grouping are national press articles.  These provide a broader perspective from experts and experienced watchdogs; these are the best reading.  The articles from Georgia provide the basics, but I would suggest instead reading the reporting from Alabama, which is deeper and more insightful.  Finally, I have provided a few articles from other states.

Citizens, make no mistake.  The infection of the District 47 election with $300,000+ in Gambling Dark Money is THE dispositive issue in the run-off (and general election).  (See Note 1.) It is a huge point of differentiation and eclipses all other candidate distinctions in the run-off.

Advocating Against Dark Money in District 47,

Tim

National Press:

These represent the most expert reporting.  I suggest reading the bolded national articles first.

Georgia:

The first article is not about Gambling Dark Money but provides important situational context.  At the end of the Georgia articles are some links to websites that provide insightful data/statistics on the Gambling PACs.

Following are some interesting websites that provide data/statistics on the Gambling PACs:

https://www.fec.gov/data/committee/C00927186

https://www.transparencyusa.org/ga

https://www.gafastmoney.com/independent-committee.html?committee=american-future

https://www.gafastmoney.com/independent-committee.html?committee=american-conservative-fund-action-georgia

Alabama:

The best state reporting on gambling Dark Money is issuing from Alabama.  Reporters there figured out early what was happening and have been quite astute in their coverage.

North Carolina:

Pennsylvania:

Ohio:

Note1: The gambling PACs have allocated $10+M to 30+ races in Georgia, so $300,000+ per race. So far, I’ve received no less than 18 mailers for Jack Miler from PACs. Another PAC, AFC Victory Fund, is also conducting a campaign for Jack Miller. So the figure of $300,000 is likely conservative. One organization that tracks PAC spending using AI has estimated about $180,000 has been spent by the American Conservative Fund on Miller. However, there are lags in the processing and reporting of data, so this is a low estimate but gives a sense of the trajectory of spending.

Uncategorized

GA House District 47 Republican Run-off: Candidate Letters

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Citizens and GA House District 47 Voters:

On May 29th, I announced that the Milton Coalition Blog would cover the Georgia House District 47 Republican Run-off Election.  This announcement came in the wake of a 3-way primary election where Brian Cochran and Jack Miller advanced to the run-off.  (Thanks to Phoebe Eckhart, the third-place finisher, for stepping up and running.)  This outcome was surprising to District 47 political watchers, who expected Miller to handily rout his competitors.  I decided I would dig deeper . . .

I requested to meet with both the run-off candidates, and both readily and graciously accepted my invitation.  Last week, I had extended and enlightening conversations with both candidates.  I also began researching the back story of the race.  I was surprised that the Milton Herald has essentially opted out of covering the election, except for articles on Miller and Cochran’s announcements of their candidacies.  That was late February and since then more than 3 months have passed with NO coverage from the Milton Herald.  I cast a wider net and found almost nil coverage from other legacy media outlets . . . or for that matter, from anyone.  This was troubling to me.  The implications for a healthy democratic republic are obvious.  Democracy dies in darkness.  Special Interests fill the information vacuum.

Other than candidate and PAC-issued communications, there was no place for voters to go.  This has also been an issue in Milton municipal elections, which is why for the past three elections, I’ve provided a neutral page that consolidates election information sources in one on-line location.  Although it is late in the primary election season, I decided the Milton Coalition Blog would fill the information void and provide analysis of, and reporting on, the District 47 race.

To that end, I offered to publish the letters of both candidates.  Following are the run-off candidates’ letters without commentary.  My only stipulations were that the letters not exceed 500 words and that both candidates send their letters to me NLT June 4th at noon.  I am providing the letters exactly as written and providing the pdfs of the letters provided by each candidate (for download).  I flipped a coin to determine which letter would be published first.

Please forward this post to family, friends, neighbors, and colleagues that live in District 47.  Please share the blog URL on social media. More informed voters yield better election outcomes.

Thanks to the candidates for their letters and thanks to readers for being informed citizens and voters,

Tim

Brian Cochran’s Letter to Voters

I grew up in rural Milton and am a Georgia Tech alum. I want to protect our community’s rich heritage even as our city grows. I am a robotics engineer, not a politician. This is my strength; my engineer mindset allows me to see practical solutions where others are stuck on political opportunism.

There are three key areas that I will focus on in my first year as your representative:  First, protecting life. 3000 children are killed by abortion every month in Georgia. We will protect life from conception to natural death. The number one job of the government is to protect life.  This is a cause I am already championing.

Second, I will provide cost of living relief through tax cuts. Too many politicians promise tax relief but lower one tax only to raise another. I will cut wasteful government spending which will allow us to cut taxes across the board. For example, our government’s computer infrastructure is aging and costly; by modernizing our infrastructure, we will cut costs and put money back in your pocket.

Third, AI is coming into our lives. New technology can be powerful, but it can also be dangerous. As a robotics engineer working on self-driving vehicles, I am the only candidate qualified to balance AI innovation with clear safety and accountability standards. AI is being used by doctors to identify new treatments. However, it is also being used for online scams targeting seniors and children, which must be stopped. The new technology needs a good steward to ensure our community benefits and is not being taken advantage of. I have that expertise.

Working at a Georgia startup, I am used to wearing many hats and solving hard problems with new technology. I know how to do more with less, a lesson our politicians need.

My campaign is built on my proven conservative track record. I have long fought for our basic rights to life and liberty. In 2020, I won my First Amendment lawsuit against the State of Georgia to protect our right to Free Speech. My lawsuit taught me to stay vigilant and unyielding.

I am a proven conservative with a plan of action. I have two pieces of draft legislation ready to go on Day One. I am ready to hit the ground running.

I will bring Biblical values to the Gold Dome. I have taken ZERO dollars from Special Interest lobbyists or PACs. I can’t be bought. I work for you.

This letter, every direct mailer, and every advertisement is written and designed by me, not political consultants. When you vote for me, you know exactly who you are voting for: Brian Cochran.

Brian Cochran

678-667-2112

brian@cochranforgeorgia.com

CochranForGeorgia.com

Jack Miller’s Letter to Voters

Dear Neighbor:

My name is Jack Miller, and I am running to be your next State Representative for House District 47.

My wife and I both grew up in this community. I got involved with politics at a young age; I was passionate about the issues, wanted to vote, and, since I was not old enough, decided the next best thing was to get involved and work for Republican campaigns.

That decision set me on a path of service to conservative causes. After my wife and I graduated from the University of Georgia, we returned home to build our careers, start our family, and invest in the community that raised us. In recent years, I created the North Fulton Young Republicans to connect young professionals and families with local issues and demonstrate how conservative policies and local control help places like Milton thrive.

I am running because I believe too many people have lost faith in the American Dream. Young people, especially, are told their voices do not matter and that their future is bleak. Government alone cannot solve that problem, but strong leadership can create the conditions for opportunity. That means lowering the state income tax, freezing and rolling back property taxes, and reducing unnecessary regulations that quietly drive up costs for Georgians.

As a financial planner, I help families manage their finances, plan for the future, and navigate the impact of taxes and government policy every day. That experience gives me a practical understanding of how taxes, regulations, and government spending affect household budgets across our district.

Through my work with the Milton First Responders Foundation, Rotary, and the Milton Historical Society, I have listened to my neighbors and understand their concerns firsthand. I have served this community for many years, and I will never stop working for the place I call home.

If elected, my responsibility will be simple: to represent the people of House District 47 and no one else. I will not answer to special interests, lobbyists, or political leadership. I will answer to my neighbors who sent me to the Capitol.

My opponent is a good man, and we agree on many issues. As President Reagan said, “The person who agrees with you 80 percent of the time is a friend and an ally — not a 20 percent traitor.” While we are competitors today, I respect him and consider him an ally in the conservative cause.

I would be honored to earn your vote. I view public office as a temporary calling, not a career. I am not running to build a lifetime in politics. I am running to serve for a short period of time, fight for this community, and then pass the torch to the next leader. Most importantly, I hope you judge me not only by the legislation I help pass, but by the bad legislation I help stop. Protecting Georgians from unnecessary government expansion is just as important as advancing good policy.

Thank you for your consideration and your vote.

brian_cochran_state_house_milton_coalition_letter (1)Download
Milton Coalition – Closing Argument – 060426Download

Uncategorized

House District 47 Race:  Gambling SuperPAC Dark Money . . . Election Infection With Divisive National Politics and . . . the Perils of Endorsements

Posted on by Milton Coalition

In my last post, I promised an analysis of the District 47 race.  Here it is . . .

The recent District 47 Republican primary was a political shocker.  Jack Miller, the heavyweight favorite and local political Wunderkind, was expected to effortlessly flatten his two (supposedly) flyweight competitors: Brian Cochran and Phoebe Eckhart.  However, voters delivered a different outcome with a loud thud.  Mr. Miller fell short of the 50% threshold by 39 votes and was forced into a run-off with Brian Cochran, a political newcomer.  Through their ballots, voters protested gambling SuperPACs dumping upwards of $300,000 (or more) of dark money into the race and injecting divisive national politics into an otherwise civil campaign.  Voters also disregarded an avalanche of endorsements from local political glitterati.  Rather than a coronation, voters opted for further vetting of the candidates.  That’s good for everyone, even Mr. Miller. 

Left: Brian Cochran; right: Jack Miller

Before I go further, it is important to understand that both candidates—Jack Miller and Brian Cochran—are qualified to represent District 47.  I knew both candidates before they announced their candidacies (See Note 1).  Last week, I had extended and enlightening conversations with both candidates.  Both have good character and are strong in their faith.  They agree on most major issues and are (mostly) taking the right positions on these issues.  It is refreshing to see two sharp young men—both still in their 20s—enter the political arena.  It should engender hope in citizens for the future of our country.  We need more Jack Millers and Brian Cochrans, rather than the failure-to-launch young people we too often encounter these days.  It is rare for a political race to offer two qualified choices.  More often, the choice is between two terrible candidates:  hold your nose . . . pick the least bad candidate, and . . . hope for the best.  Rinse and repeat.

The District 47 run-off not only offers two qualified candidates, but better still . . .  some sharp contrasts exist between the Miller and Cochran that should make vetting easier for many voters.  Only one candidate will win.  Hopefully, the runner-up will remain engaged in politics and seek and win another elected position.

Unfortunately, Jack Miller has a problem . . . and it is a big problem . . . a problem that will likely dominate the debate and discussion until election day.  There is a perception (and perhaps it reflects reality . . . voters must decide) that Miller is being bought with dark money (from gambling PACs) and with political endorsements.  The dark money has created another problem for Miller . . . divisive national politics have unnecessarily infected the campaign, alienating many voters.

When the campaign began, I was all-in for Jack Miller.  He called me soon after his announcement.  I offered financial support, advice, and my endorsement.  His initial mailers were professional and on message.  However, as the campaign progressed, like many voters, I began to have concerns that evolved into deep reservations and eventually convinced me (and many others, it seems) to vote for Mr. Cochran.  Mr. Miller’s campaign became lackluster, almost as if outsourced to a campaign consultant.  (Mr. Miller is employing a consultant; Mr. Cochran is not.)  Miller’s campaign seemed to be coasting on autopilot . . . perhaps based on an assumption of electoral inevitability . . . a reasonable assumption as Mr. Miller has many advantages over Mr. Cochran.  However, advantages are often double-edged swords—harmful if wrongly wielded, which some were.  Two factors—the corrosive influence of gambling PACs (and their dark money) in the race and a deeply flawed endorsement strategy—tipped the scales for me and many other voters.  I was conflicted but ended up voting for Mr. Cochran in the primary.  (However, I am an undecided voter going into the run-off . . . I am waiting to see how things play out.) 

So let’s dive deeper into Mr. Miller’s loss at the polls.  (See Note 2.)  Let’s analyze the two primary factors in Mr. Miller’s defeat:  1) the negative impact of gambling PACs and their dark money in the race and 2) a poorly executed political endorsement strategy. 

The first and much more important factor in Miller’s defeat was the flow of copious amounts of dark money into the race—most of it tied to gambling PACs.  This will not play well with most local Republican voters (regardless of whether they support expansion of gambling or not).  I received no fewer than 16 mailers paid for mostly by gambling PACS (See Note 3 for an explanation of dark money, PACs/SuperPACs and how this all works).  At $6,000 to $9,000 per mailer, we’re talking $96,000 to $144,000 just for mailers.  However, the PACs are also conducting a coordinated media campaign, including ads on Fox News.  So it is fair to estimate that upwards of $300,000 (or maybe more) of dark money has been allocated to promote Mr. Miller; no dark money is being spent on Mr. Cochran.  Even now, this dark money is continuing to flow in support of Mr. Miller.  The main PAC supporting Miller is spending $10M ($7.8M going to Republicans and $2.2M to Democrats) statewide on 34 races . . . if you do the math, that’s nearly $300,000 per race.  (Source:  AJC. See Note 4 for links to articles from AJC and other news sources about the gambling industry’s intrusion into state legislative races.)

The expenditure of so much dark money is bad enough, but another big problem emerged for Mr. Miller because of this media campaign.  The PACs’ messaging and presentation were often poor and off-target, especially the clear and repeated references to divisive national politics.  Until the dark money appeared, neither candidate had mentioned Trump . . . and neither has ever done so in their communications.  And based on my conversations with both candidates, their positions on Trump are similar and both stated they are opposed to injecting national politics into the District 47 race.  District 47 is certainly a Red district but it is a nuanced sort of Red . . . the persuadable voters that decide elections in Milton (and in contiguous areas) do NOT like appeals to raw partisanship . . . so these dark money communications could be damaging Miller . . . understandably so.

Photo from PAC-financed mailer

So what does this all say and mean for Jack Miller’s candidacy?  Miller asserts that he has no control over these PAC expenditures.  Technically, that is true.  Candidates are forbidden to COORDINATE with PACs, BUT . . . and this is important . . . candidates can COMMUNICATE with PACs.  A candidate can certainly send a letter to a PAC to demand the PAC cease its efforts.  The problem for Miller is that he went along with the actions of the gambling political machine; he did not protest (and still has not).  While he had concerns (particularly around the messaging and presentation), my opinion is that his campaign believed the dark-money promotion would help him (or perhaps not hurt him enough that he would lose the election).  They were wrong.  Where I fault Miller is his not investigating the PACs’ ties and agendas and subsequently not disavowing them.  Miller says he was not aware of the dark money ties to gambling interests.  Perhaps that is true, but he should have known . . . that’s the crux of the matter.  These PACs have been extensively exposed in the press, so it is not hard to figure out who they are and what they are promoting.  (See Note 4 for links to articles detailing the activities of the primary SuperPAC and primary PAC supporting Miller.). And remember that Miller is a seasoned political operative with an extensive political network and a paid campaign consultant, so voters are likely not to accept an excuse of inexperience or ignorance from Miller.

The second but lesser factor in Miller’s loss was a poorly executed endorsement strategy.  Most of the North Fulton political establishment has endorsed Miller.  The gist of Miller’s endorsement strategy seems to be:  the more politicians who endorse me, the better.  However, with endorsements (as with most things), eventually you reach a point of diminishing returns and later a point of negative returns.  Some endorsements are better than others.  Others provide no benefit, so just muddle your message.  And still other endorsements are just harmful . . . and there were a few of those in Miller’s endorsement portfolio.  Rather than carpet-bomb voters with a dog’s breakfast of endorsements, Miller should have communicated a thoughtful and curated selection of more impactful endorsements.  (See Note 5 for my advice to Miller on endorsements.)

I received one mailer from Miller that had 24 endorsements!  And every endorser was a politician–several held in low regard by citizens.  Not a single business leader or other type of community leader was included.  For many voters, this is a huge turn-off.  Voters recoil at the local political elite telling them how to vote.  And the sophisticated, persuadable voters that decide elections realize that such endorsements come with lots of strings.  They create obligations for Mr. Miller.  Miller has issued bushels of IOUs that could limit his effectiveness.  He is now beholden to these endorsers.  Again, the perception (and perhaps it reflects reality . . . voters must decide) is that politicians have bought Miller with their endorsements.  Don’t misunderstand.  Strong and healthy relationships with current and former elected officials are beneficial.  These relationships are valuable and take time to develop.  Certainly, Miller can and should play the experience card and assert he can hit the ground running; Cochran cannot say this.  However, the issue is NOT the political relationships; the issue IS the endorsements and associated obligations.  Yes, Miller can hit the ground running, but will he trip over all the IOUs he has issued?

So did the gambling PACs and endorsements hurt Miller?  It is difficult to say.  Miller certainly believes the gambling PACs hurt him.  To prove his point, Miller points out that he won the early vote and lost the election day vote.  He logically concludes that the increasing surge of dark money mailers, ads, etc. pushed voters (including me) toward Mr. Cochran.  And to make matters worse . . . in my opinion, the message that Mr. Miller was being bought was reinforced by all the endorsements he sought and was granted from the local political establishment—several from disgraced/discredited politicians.

A big positive for Miller is that he came very close to winning 50% (+1 vote) in the first primary.  However, the third-place finisher Phoebe Eckhart has endorsed Cochran.  Cochran clearly has the momentum coming into the run-off.  And Miller is on the defensive.  Additionally, my sense is that fewer voters will vote in the run-off; this is typical.  This could also hurt Miller, as Cochran’s voters seem more enthused so more likely to show up in proportionally higher numbers.  (See Note 6 for a recent example of a Milton city council runoff where the second-place finisher handily beat the first-place finisher.)

Despite all this, I believe Miller is still the favorite to win and Cochran is still the underdog.  I believe the race will be close.  I give Miller a 65-75% chance of winning.  However, it will depend on how Miller addresses the two factors that caused his defeat.  I suspect his consultant and his political advisors will tell Miller to ignore the gambling issue . . . don’t give it any Oxygen . . . change the subject.  I know some of Miller’s political advisors well and I can tell you they don’t know boo about winning elections and even less about integrity.  I believe Miller will flip the odds in Cochran’s favor if he doesn’t acknowledge the gambling issue, state unequivocally his opposition to expanding gambling in Georgia, and disavow the PACs that are supporting him.  This action is not only the right thing to do, but it will also maximize Miller’s chances of victory.  However, time is running out . . . or maybe has run out.  If Miller delays much longer in not addressing this issue, any 11th hour disavowal will be justly viewed as disingenuous.  You can’t eat the steak but then refuse to pay the bill because the steak wasn’t to your liking (to quote Judge Judy).

Regarding his poorly executed endorsement strategy, there is not much that can now be done.  What’s done is done.  You cannot really “return” endorsements, although Miller might quietly take down controversial endorsements from his website.  What Miller can do is de-emphasize endorsements in his communications and reassure voters that he is his own man and not beholden to any politician or Special Interest.

Miller needs to respect the intelligence and integrity of his North Fulton voters.  They are tough but fair.  Honesty and sincerity—that’s the Jack Miller I know—are the best way to finish out the Republican primary.  Same goes for Mr. Cochran.

In another post, I will compare the candidates.  There are several areas where there are significant contrasts that should make candidate vetting easier.

Voters, this is a hugely important election. I urge readers to share this post with fellow voters through social media or forwarding a link to the blog via e-mail.

Advocating For Election Fairness and Integrity,

Tim

Note 1:  I have known Jack Miller since 2017, when we both were involved in Laura Bentley’s campaign for Milton City Council; we’ve maintained a friendly acquaintance since then.  Although only 25, Jack is an experienced political operative who has worked in many political campaigns and is well-regarded.  I’ve known Brian Cochran’s family for 25 years. (We were neighbors in the same subdivision. My wife and Brian’s mother were in a small Bible study group that spanned 3 years and the entire Bible.)  However, I didn’t initially realize the Brian Cochran running for office was the same Brian Cochran we knew from the neighborhood where we lived 1993-2013.  He’s grown into a fine young man with a great future ahead of him.

Note 2:  I intentionally use the word “loss” to refer to Mr. Miller’s failure to garner more than 50% of the vote because his two challengers were both explicitly running against Mr. Miller and collectively did achieve more than 50% of the vote.  Moreover, third-place finisher Eckhart has endorsed Mr. Cochran in the run-off.

Note 3:  What I mean by “dark money” in the context of this blog post is money where the ultimate sources are anonymous or else difficult to trace.  In some cases, the agenda of the PACs distributing such money is not mentioned in its promotional media.  That is the case with most of the dark money supporting Jack Miller.  The primary PAC conducting a media campaign on behalf of Miller is American Conservative Fund (ACF), which is primarily funded by Win For America, a gambling SuperPAC that doesn’t even have a public website.  ACF does have a rudimentary website but nowhere is gambling mentioned.  ( Link to ACF website:  https://americanconservativefund.com/ ). None of their mailers (and other promotional media) for Miller mention gambling.  So you can see that the efforts of these PACs and Super-PACs are non-transparent, deceptive, and manipulative.  Win For America is reaching Democrat voters through a separate PAC, American Future, which also has only a rudimentary website that makes no mention of gambling.  (Link to AF website:  https://americanfuturepac.org/ )  So you can see that the goal here is to cynically use conservative and progressive talking points to manipulate Republican and Democrat voters to vote for candidates that the gambling interests believe will promote legalization/expansion of gambling.  Ultimately, the gambling interests care nothing about conservative or liberal causes; they only care about buying politicians that will promote increased gambling.

Note 4:  Following are links to articles explaining the intrusion of gambling PACs into state legislative races in GA, AL, and NC (and elsewhere).  I am also including a link to the Moms Against Gambling website.  MAG is putting up a valiant, but unfortunately under-funded, uphill fight against the gambling political machine. (Note: A subscription may be required to read the AJC articles.)

https://www.ajc.com/politics/2026/05/sports-betting-industry-pours-10m-into-georgia-campaigns

https://www.ajc.com/politics/2026/05/sports-betting-industry-backs-georgia-legislators-as-it-seeks-legal-gambling

https://www.themountaineer.com/news/pac-funding-tied-to-sports-betting-bankrolls-pless-campaign-ads/article_b94b9548-5b23-4393-87a7-c31d8ddc1c7c.html

https://www.al.com/politics/2026/05/conservative-groups-sound-alarm-over-massive-amounts-of-gambling-money-influencing-alabama-election.html

https://alabamareflector.com/2026/05/13/behind-those-flyers-gambling-money-and-murky-pacs

https://1819news.com/news/item/trying-to-hurt-me-more-than-anything-else-in-this-election-senate-pro-tem-gudger-disavows-dark-money-american-conservative-fund-pac-mailers

https://momsagainstgambling.com

Note 5:  I did suggest to Mr. Miller that he get all 7 Milton City Council members behind his candidacy.  I believed such an endorsement would carry weight in the general election in the fall.

Note 6:  Following are two screen shots of election results from the 2021 Milton municipal elections.  The race went to a run-off.  The leader in the general election, Jami Tucker, came close to winning; she came up 160 votes short.  However, Tucker badly lost the run-off, dropping from 45.66% to 37.22%.   Her challenger, Andrea Verhoff, surged more than 31 percentage points to win the run-off with a whopping 62.78% of the vote.

Uncategorized

Milton Coalition Blog Is Covering Georgia House District 47 Republican Run-off Election

Posted on by Milton Coalition

District 47 Voters:

I have decided to analyze and report on the Georgia House District 47 Republican run-off election.  District 47 covers all of Milton and Mountain Park and some areas of Roswell, Alpharetta, and Cherokee County.

Brian Cochran and Phoebe Eckhart–the two candidates that challenged the heavily favored Jack Miller–forced a run-off that no one anticipated.  The issue for voters was $200,000+ of Special Interest dark money (mostly from gambling concerns) that financed a massive media campaign that injected national politics into the race.  Voters reacted negatively and punished Mr. Miller.  I will provide much more in-depth analysis in my next post.

District 47 Republican candidates (l to r): Brian Cochran and Jack Miller

Sadly, the Milton Herald has opted not to cover the District 47 race.  The Herald only covered Jan Jones retirement announcement and announcements from Cochran and Miller that they were running but has been otherwise silent. 

This lack of media coverage is one reason I have decided to blog on the District 47 race.  Also, I want to provide voters a framework for understanding the current dynamics of the race so that they can tune out political noise and make an informed decision based on the character, background, and positions of the candidates.  Finally, I live in District 47, so I have a personal interest in the outcome.

Currently, I do not plan to endorse either candidate and I am an undecided voter.

I have asked each candidate to provide their closing arguments to voters, which I will publish next week.

In the meantime, as I’ve done with municipal elections, I am providing useful links that voters can use to research the candidates:

Jack Miller:

Miller Campaign Website

Miller Campaign Facebook Page

Miller Campaign Instagram Page

Brian Cochran:

Cochran Campaign Website

Cochran Campaign Facebook Page

Cochran Campaign Instagram Page

In closing, I request that blog subscribers and blog visitors inform fellow citizens about the blog’s coverage of the run-off. Please forward the blog email and share the blog URL on social media. The District 47 seat is critical to protecting and furthering the interests of the greater Milton area.

Advocating For Citizens,

Tim

Uncategorized

Renewing the Legacy of Memorial Day:  Milton Needs to Honor Only Warriors Who Made the Ultimate Sacrifice

Posted on by Milton Coalition
Photo: Normandy American Cemetery at Colleville-sur-Mer

A reminder to Miltonites that Memorial Day’s purpose is:  “To pay tribute to individuals who have made the ultimate sacrifice in service to the United States” (excerpt from the National Moment of Remembrance Act passed in 2000).

Americans should not have to be reminded that Memorial Day’s intent is to honor American warriors who died on active duty in the service of our nation.  However, polls show that less than half of Americans understand Memorial Day’s purpose.  More than a third confuse Memorial Day with Veterans Day.  Many citizens also do not understand that Veterans Day’s primary purpose is to honor living (not dead) veterans.  And sadly, this ignorance is metastasizing across generations . . . barely a fourth of Gen Z know Memorial Day’s purpose.  This disturbing lack of understanding of, appreciation for, and gratitude for sacrifices in the cause of freedom fit into a broader pattern of disregard and often outright disrespect for bedrock American traditions . . . one element of which is gradual dilution of these traditions (often for political purposes), as I will explain later.  Sadly, despite a highly educated and patriotic populace, this ignorance is perhaps more profound in Milton (than most other places) as I will explain later in this post.

Photo: from my March 2026 visit to Arlington Cemetery to attend inurnment ceremony for a shipmate and close friend.

This trend of declining civic illiteracy has long been recognized as a problem, so much so that in 2000, Congress passed the National Moment of Remembrance Act to create a clear and firm statutory framework for Memorial Day.  The first four paragraphs articulate lawmakers’ disquiet about the eroding awareness of, and appreciation for Memorial Day and their goal to “renew the legacy of Memorial Day.” 

(See Note 1 for the interesting story behind this statute)

Municipalities across America commemorate Memorial Day, including the City of Milton.  Unfortunately, just a few years after its founding, Milton took a wrong (and weird) turn with its commemoration of Memorial Day (and also Veterans Day).  I will provide only an outline of the story here and save the sordid details for another blog post.  (Hint:  Votes and vainglory trumped veterans.)  Here is the Reader’s Digest version . . .

Photo from City of Milton Faceblook page. Note the pedestrians with strollers in the crosswalks. See Note 2.

Each stenciled with the name of a departed veteran, Milton’s memorial markers are indisputably the predominant symbol of Milton’s Memorial Day (and Veterans Day) commemorations.  These ubiquitous markers were first erected along Milton’s roads in 2009, just 3 years after the city’s founding.  Bill Lusk, then a member of council, began manufacturing these crosses and (with permission of the city) erecting the crosses along roads in Milton’s right-of-way.  (If the Josh Chang case just popped into your head, you are onto one of many issues involving these markers.  See Note 2.)  The City stored the crosses, promoted the charity, and shared citizens’ personal information from their applications for crosses (See Note 3).

Here’s the (big) problem:  the veterans’ names on the crosses are often not the names of warriors who made the ultimate sacrifice for America in battle.  Far from it.  Many are just dead veterans, nothing more.  Inexplicably, Mr. Lusk invited citizens to submit the names of ANY deceased family member—even distant relations—that had served in the military, regardless of whether they died on active duty or not.  This is a very low bar that has created myriad problems.  To my knowledge, it is generally not known which veterans made the ultimate sacrifice and which veterans died after their service (from natural causes, accidents, or whatever).  So those crosses you’re whizzing by in your car are often merely “participation trophies.”  Let’s not mince words.  You serve your country, you die, and you have a familial relation—however distant—to a resident of Milton . . . congratulations, you’ve earned yourself a cross in perpetuity on Birmingham Highway.  Never mind that John Q. Veteran, whose name is stenciled on a cross, might be the dead third cousin of a Milton resident that long ago moved away from Milton.  Never mind that John may have died of natural causes long after his service.  Yes, it’s weird, but more importantly it’s plain WRONG.  Weirdness aside, it’s this sort of perversion of Memorial Day that the National Moment of Remembrance Act was designed to correct.  And if you follow the facts and the logic, you come to the inescapable conclusion that Milton’s Memorial Day commemoration is disrespectful to the very veterans it is intended to honor:  fallen veterans.  The sacrifice of those who died in battle is diluted and diminished by the City of Milton.  It is a travesty that Milton must correct. In the words of the National Moment of Remembrance Act, it is time for Milton “to renew the legacy of Memorial Day.” (Some time after late 2019, the familial/ancestral criteria were tightened. See Note 4.)

There are two obvious questions that should be answered. 

First, why did Mr. Lusk set the criteria so low for who qualified for a Memorial Day cross?  I don’t know.  Maybe citizens should ask Mr. Lusk.  Perhaps Mr. Lusk’s motives were political . . . or perhaps personal . . . or perhaps, like so many Americans, he was just ignorant about Memorial Day or just didn’t care.  (A corollary question is why were the crosses planted along roads rather than in a more respectful, dignified, contemplative, and solemn setting, like a field?)  I have my theories . . .

Photo from 2024 ceremony where Mayor Jamison awarded Bill Lusk the city’s “top prize” for his volunteer work. (See Note 3.)

Second, why did the City of Milton sanction Mr. Lusk’s markers initiative in the first place, considering its misalignment with Memorial Day’s purpose?  And more importantly, why doesn’t the City Council and Mayor Jamison correct its mistake and reorient Memorial Day commemorations to align with federal statute and with Memorial Day’s intent?  Does their oath to uphold federal laws (like the National Moment of Remembrance Act) mean anything to City Council Members?  Why isn’t Mayor Peyton Jamison showing leadership on this issue?  Unfortunately, doing Memorial Day the wrong way has become a habit . . . and habits, especially bad ones, are difficult to break.  The Milton markers initiative has been effective in deprogramming and reprogramming citizens and even Council Members to believe Memorial Day is about honoring ALL dead veterans, no matter how or when they died (or how tenuous their connection to Milton).  Make the ultimate sacrifice for your country?  Who cares?  Go to the back of the line.  All that matters is that you died and a familial connection to Milton—however slight—exists.  Sadly, citizens shouldn’t count on Milton city government to do the right thing.  Milton politicians are no different than most other weak-willed politicians–whether county, state or national.  They will only do the right thing in response to a crisis or a citizen outcry.  Based on my long experience, Milton council members will only respond if citizens (figuratively speaking) take a baseball bat to their heads . . . and then the same council members will complain that protesting citizens are combative, negative, “abusing their right to free speech,” etc.

(Photo:  USS Mariano G. Vallejo (SSBN 658), the submarine on which I completed 5 patrols.)

Long-time readers know that I am a veteran.  Four generations of my immediate family have served in the military, serving on the front lines in 3 wars.  Myself, I served 8 years as a US Navy nuclear submarine officer.  Yes, this issue is personal for me, as it should be for any proud American.  None of the current members of council are veterans; several are profoundly (and willfully) ignorant of the issues discussed herein.  Veterans commemorations are a litmus test for me.  I have patiently and quietly tried to correct this affront to fallen veterans (for nearly a year), but my patience and quietude are wearing thin.  I have proposed a superior solution to the city for displaying the memorial markers problem (See Note 5).This blog will no longer support (and will actively oppose) any council member that continues to allow the current sorry state of affairs to continue.  An educated and patriotic city like Milton deserves better . . . much better.

Advocating for the Renewal of the Legacy of Memorial Day in Milton,

Tim

Note 1:  The story behind the National Moment of Remembrance Act is an interesting one; its chief protagonist is Carmella LaSpada.  Ms. LaSpada had planned on an acting career.  However, her path veered because of a USO tour exposing her to Vietnam veterans dying from battle wounds in a hospital . . .  a life-altering experience for LaSpada. Honoring fallen warriors (and victims of terrorist attacks) became her life’s work.  In 1971, Ms. LaSpada founded No Greater Love (derived from John 15:13) to further the cause of remembrance.  The culmination of Ms. LaSpada’s efforts was the passage of the National Moment of Remembrance Act.  (Click on the following link to read more about Ms. LaSpada:  https://ifocuscreatives.com/portfolio-site/ngl/our-founder.shtml.)

Photo of car that lost control on Crabapple bypass where crosses are deployed.

Note 2:  Deployment of 900+ memorial markers in the right-of-way (often just inches from roads and sidewalks) presents a clear and present danger to public safety and massive liability for the city . . . issues the City is currently ducking.  The City got lucky with the Chang case but will not be so lucky the next time.  The City is courting danger.  I’ll write more about this in another blog post. 

Screenshot taken 10/02/2026 of MVMM website

Note 3:  A sitting council member starting a veterans’ charity and entangling it with the city was bound to cause problems . . . and it has.  Mr. Lusk’s Milton Veterans Memorial Markers organization, which is responsible for the memorial markers, has both a troubled past and present.  In 2017, for example, Mr. Lusk was issued a letter of reprimand from the City of Milton for misusing MVMM’s email list for political solicitations (and also for soliciting city employees).  In 2022, MVMM lost its tax-exempt status, but until recently continued to misrepresent itself as tax-exempt while continuing to solicit donations.  Neither the city nor citizens nor donors were notified.  The City has known about this issue for nearly a year but chosen to do . . . nothing.  There is much more that can be said about MVMM, but I’ll save the details for another post. Below is screenshot from the IRS website documenting revocation of MVMM’s tax-exempt status due to failure to file 990 tax returns for 3 consecutive years . . . this is a postcard for small charities that takes < 5 minutes to complete.

Source: IRS website, May 2026

Note 4: For 10+ years, a Milton resident could submit any relative for a marker. However, some time after late 2019, the familial criteria for markers were narrowed to: “direct descendants (ie: Spouse, Parent, Sibling, Child, Grandparent) of a current Milton Resident.” My guess is that someone in MVMM woke up and realized that the large and growing marker inventory was becoming too heavy a burden. The crosses must be maintained (painted, repaired, re-stenciled, replaced, etc.); installed/uninstalled twice per year; stored and transported . . . you get the picture. The current count is 949 markers.

Note 5: I have proposed to the City a superior means for MVMM to display its the memorial markers. For Memorial Day, ONLY the markers made for veterans that actually died while on active duty could be emplaced in a field. The markers could be laid out in a pattern, grouped by conflict, etc. MVMM could provide a sign explaining the memorial markers. Docents could staff the site during certain hours. In a tasteful/dignified way, MVMM could fundraise through collecting donations and/or selling merchandise. If MVMM was unable to secure a field for its markers, the City might provide park land for marker emplacement. Separate from Memorial Day and Veterans Day, ALL of the crosses could be displayed in field during a suitable two-week period. October would be a nice month for this. There is no federal commemoration for dead veterans, so MVMM would be creating a local commemoration (separate from Memorial Day and Veterans Day) to honor departed veterans. As with Memorial Day, MVMM could fundraise, staff the site with docents, and erect an explanatory sign. To the maximum extent, MVMM’s operations, maintenance, storage, and execution should be private–that is, separate from the City. It is past time for MVMM to stand on its own two feet. MVMM has had 17 years to create a self-sustaining organization. This proposed solution has many benefits: elimination of road hazards and associated liability; more respectful, dignified, solemn commemoration; better/more enjoyable access; more educational opportunities; and greater fundraising/promotional potential (needed to achieve organizational sustainability).

Uncategorized

Milton Coalition Blog’s 10th Anniversary:  A Big Thank You to Milton’s Citizens

Posted on by Milton Coalition

May 2026 marks the Milton Coalition Blog’s 10th anniversary.  This auspicious milestone seems a fitting occasion to reflect on the past 10 years and to discuss the blog’s future.  However, before I begin, I am obliged to express my heartfelt appreciation to my readers—Milton’s citizens–for your support and your friendship, which have sustained me.  Thank you.  My blog’s steady North Star has always been the best interests of Milton’s citizens.   Period.

When I first launched the Milton Coalition Blog, my hypothesis—really just a hunch–was that in a constitutional republic, facts and logic—even when wielded by ordinary, lowly citizens such as myself and readers of this blog—would prevail over darker forces ever lurking in politics and government.  I further surmised that dependably keeping to the high road would be the best route to defeating self-serving, dishonest politicians and their affiliated Special Interests that were clogging Milton’s low road.  However, I realized that facts and logic would not be insufficient; adherence to high ethical standards would not suffice.  Rather, it was necessary to reach and organize citizens; catalyzing citizen engagement was essential to effecting lasting change.  This required a direct communications channel to citizens . . . the Milton Coalition Blog.

The Milton Coalition Blog has been successful beyond my wildest expectations.  The numbers (totals for the past 10 years) speak for themselves (See Note 1).

  • 90,000+ views of blog posts/pages achieved through 1) direct blog visits (48,625 views) and 2) emails to blog subscribers (42,000+ views, including forwards to other citizens . . . dramatically increasing the blog’s reach).
  • 19,780 direct visitors to the blog
  • 799 blog shares on social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram), steering 2,452 visitors (or 12% of total visitors) to the blog.
  • 3,148 click-throughs from the blog to external websites (e.g., Appen Media, Milton Coalition petitions, candidate websites)
  • 2,924 video views.
  • 2,822 signatures (and 994 associated comments) on the Milton Coalition’s two petitions

These numbers have skewed upward over time, with blog traffic especially heavy during the municipal election cycles.  Blog views during the 2023 election cycle (when voters ousted Rick Mohrig) were more than double the blog views during the 2017 election cycle (when voters ousted Bill Lusk).

Clearly, the blog has reached a wide swath of Milton’s voters.  However, has this reach translated to impact?  Has positive change been effected?  I believe the answer is certainly YES—at least, in the context of elections . . .  choosing WHO governs Milton.

When the blog was launched, Milton had gone two election cycles without any competitive elections.  This apathy was a result of palpable voter disillusionment and disgust with extreme dysfunction within Milton’s city government—a consequence of petty and personal infighting between Milton’s two long-warring factions.  Citizens were disengaged and ill-informed; no one was watching the store, with predictable results:  council members’ self-interests prevailed over citizens’ interests; arrogance flourished.

In this environment (and often to my amazement), the Milton Coalition Blog emerged as an important instrument of accountability, serving as a government watchdog and especially effective in shaping and influencing elections . . .  a beacon of light shining brightly on the doings of Milton’s government and politics.  Since the blog’s launch in 2016, every subsequent election has involved at least one competitive race.  In two of these competitive races, long-time incumbents (Bill Lusk and Rick Mohrig) experienced lopsided losses.  Just as important, four city council members (Laura Bentley, Paul Moore, Matt Kunz, and Karen Thurman) opted not to run for re-election in the face of almost certain defeat; the misdeeds of these four politicians had been extensively exposed at the blog.  This phenomenon of not seeking re-election in the face of probable defeat had not previously occurred in Milton.  It is a welcome development . . . not quite as a preferable as a competitive election, but nevertheless the result of competitive dynamics and an increased emphasis on accountability.  The Milton Coalition Blog certainly played an influential—if not dispositive—role in much-needed turnover at council (although replacement candidates have often been disappointing and sometimes just as bad).

Besides facilitating the exit of wayward elected representatives, the blog has also yielded benefits in the form of policy changes (especially in zoning) and reforms to government’s architecture—for example, defeat of the CSO and banning of community septic (for residential purposes).  I will not dwell on these victories.  Rather, I suggest readers browse the blog to better understand the Blog’s impact on governmental policy and processes.

Unfortunately, these benefits for the community have often come at a personal cost to me.  I have paid a steep price for my citizen/community advocacy.  In the past, I have been loath to discuss the personal toll of my involvement in politics so as not to dissuade other citizens from engaging.  Rather, a key blog objective has been to encourage–not discourage–citizen engagement.  Thus, for the most part, I have quietly borne the burdens of community advocacy.

Citizens might be surprised by the labor (of love) involved in publishing the blog.  I have literally invested thousands of hours in my research and writing.  Consider the following:  Since its inception, I have published 375 posts (and pages), which were crafted using 306,000+ words, averaging 816 words per post—about the length of the typical op-ed piece in a newspaper.  Consider that the average non-fiction book is 60,000 to 80,000 words, so the blog’s content would fill 4 to 5 typical non-fiction books.  Suffice to say, the MC Blog requires a lot of hard work.

The financial burden of advocacy—out-of-pocket expenditures and even greater opportunity costs–has been significant.  I have spent $25,000+ of my own money on my advocacy.  This includes $15,000 paid to attorneys to protect my First Amendment rights (of free speech, free assembly, and protest).  During the 2017 election cycle, Council Member Bill Lusk and his proxies used lawfare to (try to) silence and discredit me.  A total of 3 ethics complaints were filed; two were directly filed (after the election) by Lusk.  These complaints backfired, with Lusk suffering the worst election defeat in Milton’s history (See Note 2). 

My out-of-pocket costs have been far exceeded by my opportunity costs.  For 2 ½ years, I walked away from my business to focus almost exclusively on community advocacy . . . costing me many hundreds of thousands of dollars.  At the same time (and since then) I have witnessed elected officials brazenly and shamefully monetizing their council positions (while on council and after leaving).  (For example, since leaving office, former council member Laura Bentley has repurposed her political Facebook page to sell real estate.)

Notwithstanding thousands of hours of labor and heavy financial burdens, the highest costs of the blog have been personal.  And by this, I mean nasty (but thankfully . . . wholly unsuccessful) personal attacks–sometimes from the council dais, but just as often in the shadows (for example, posting of anonymous attack videos).  Speaking truth to power means that you make yourself a target of Milton’s wackos . . . and there are many.  What this lunatic fringe lacks in understanding, they more than make up for in viciousness.  Citizens would be shocked by the many hate-filled communications I have received over the past decade . . . truly vile stuff . . . and always from individuals completely ignorant of the facts and usually incited by former elected officials, who trick others into doing their bidding.  Recently, I even received an anonymous, veiled death threat (that I turned over to the Milton Police Department). 

Fortunately, while the personal costs have been quite high, the personal benefits have been more numerous and greater.  Complimentary and supportive communications from citizens have far exceeded the personal attacks.  I have made many lifelong friends.  I understand myself and my fellow humans much better because of my advocacy efforts.  I believe I have made a big positive difference in my community.  And my trust and confidence in Milton’s citizens have been bolstered.  Time and again, I’ve seen you—the citizens of Milton—rise to the occasion.  When required, you have written emails to council, signed petitions, and showed up to speak at council.  When presented with facts and logic, Miltonites have consistently elected the better candidates to council (although often the choices are far from optimal and sometimes unsatisfactory). Kudos to you.

So in closing my 376th blog post/page, it seems fitting to peer into the future:  Whither the blog?  Answer:  I will continue to publish blog posts.  However, my focus will be more selective.  I now live in Alpharetta, so in the future, I will generally not opine on emerging policy issues, unless such issues (if wrongly decided) might have spillover effects in Alpharetta.  My intent is to limit my efforts to legacy issues or else to HOW of government gets done—that is, process and principles . . . my passion.  I know from my 40+ years of professional experience, good results are only possible through good process and through application of sound principles.  Excellent governance (e.g., transparency, accountability, rigor, fairness, honesty) is essential to excellent outcomes.  In addition to addressing legacy issues and the good governance, I plan to write the story of my involvement in Milton politics, weaving in lessons learned that would make Milton’s government more responsive to citizens’ prerogatives.  The blog has always been about you, the denizens of Milton . . . and always will be.

Thanks again for your friendship and support over the past 10 years,

Tim

Note 1:  Included in my blog statistics are numbers for my precursor blog Say-No-To-The-CSO.  However, these numbers generally account for less than 5% of the totals.

Note 2:  In the 2017 election, citizens rendered a harsh–but just–judgment of Mr. Lusk (a city founder who had served on council for 11 years since the city’s founding).  Lusk was handed the worst election defeat in Milton’s history.  Lusk garnered the lowest percentage ever (29%) of votes in a local election.  Lusk also had the most votes (3,164) ever cast against a candidate in the highest ever turnout (4,442) municipal election (that did not include other ballot items) in Milton’s history.  Mr. Lusk blames me, but alas . . . I was just the messenger.

Uncategorized

Key Takeaways From 2025 District 3 Election (Belated Post)

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Better late than never. I had promised commentary on the 2025 District 3 election.  Here it is . . .

Capturing lessons learned is important, because in politics, the past is prologue (Shakespeare, The Tempest).  Following are six takeaways from the 2025 election . . . somewhat of a dog’s breakfast, but here goes . . .

Takeaway #1:  Yancy Was Spared a Historic and Embarrassing Loss Because of Additional Ballot Items. 

Yes, Ike Yancy’s 62-38 defeat was lopsided.  However, Yancy likely would have suffered a much larger margin of defeat but for additional items on the ballot.  The 2025 municipal election vote count was around 5,600.  A typical municipal election—that is, one with only council elections and no additional ballot items—averages about 3,600 votes (about 10% of registered voters) and ranges between 2500 and 4500 votes depending on the number of races and campaign intensity.  Unfortunately, the 2025 campaign was a low-energy affair between two lackluster candidates.  Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that around 2,500 voters would have cast ballots if the only ballot item was the Jacobus-Yancy match-up.  That means around 3,100 voters were likely drawn to Milton’s polling places because of the (highly contested) Public Service Commission race, the senior exemption ballot initiative, or both.  We can assume these voters are relatively uninformed about municipal politics and therefore the vote differential between Jacobus and Yancy would be narrower with this voter group.  Assuming a generous incumbency advantage of 10% (I normally assume only 5% based on previous elections), Jacobus and Yancy would respectively garner 55% and 45% of these 3,100 low-involvement voters.  Therefore, to achieve the 62%-38% final outcome means that Jacobus would have garnered 70+% of the remaining 2500 voters that would have turned out just for the city council election.  That implies that Yancy would have experienced a historic election defeat only matched by Bill Lusk’s 2017 loss.

Note:  I never believed Yancy had even a remote chance of winning but did not want to dissuade voters from casting ballots with predictions of his demise.

Takeaway #2:  Gimmicks and Trickery Don’t Work.

Yancy’s campaign failed on both a strategic and tactical level . . . so much so that Jacobus’ lame and inauthentic campaign (clearly outsourced to a consultant) appeared brilliant by comparison.  Unfortunately, Yancy seems to have fell under the spell of a few ex-council members and wacko political operatives.  Former council member Laura Bentley pitched especially hard for Mr. Yancy . . . probably to his detriment (as I’ll explain more later).  The skullduggery of Milton’s long-suffering opposition has become tedious and tiresome.  In 2025, Milton’s political malcontents predictably resorted to the same old tricks and gimmicks:  fake candidate forums; sham endorsing organizations; and meaningless PAC endorsements.  Not only are their antics petty and dishonest, but they’re also singularly ineffective.  These clumsy attempts to dupe Milton’s voters have never worked.  Milton’s political tricksters might instead consider respecting the intelligence of Milton’s voters and engaging in honest and thoughtful debate about issues that matter most to citizens.

Takeaway #3:  A Stronger, Independent Candidate Could Have (easily) Defeated Jacobus.

Let’s be honest.  Jan Jacobus is the weakest member of council and that weakness carried over to his campaign.  Jacobus held few meet-and-greets, did not knock on doors, effected no election-day ground game, etc.   Additionally, Jacobus’s record left him dangerously exposed—for example, his inexplicable and inexcusable support for Rick Mohrig in the 2023 election.  Currently, serious issues lurk in Milton’s city government that are not being acknowledged, much less addressed . . . issues that might have been easily and justifiably exploited by Yancy for electoral gain.  Jacobus was supremely beatable; the right challenger could have easily won election.  Ike Yancy was not that challenger.  Yancy’s campaign was doomed from the get-go.  Yancy faced two insurmountable obstacles:  his cluelessness, which I’ve discussed in other blog posts, and his association with discredited former council members (and Milton’s political wackos).  More about the former in Takeaway #4.

Takeaway #4:  Three Strikes . . . You’re Out.  Milton’s Political Factions Should Allow a Worthy Opposition to Emerge in Milton.

Former council member Laura Bentley has emerged as the de facto leader of the opposition (to the current city council). Bentley was Yancy’s strongest backer (although she seemed stingy with her monetary support).  Accordingly, Yancy’s defeat was Bentley’s defeat and, more generally, yet another defeat for Milton’s two long-warring political factions. Since 2021, both factions’ candidates have consistently lost (Tucker, Mohrig, Gordon, Yancy) at the polls or chosen not to run (Bentley, Kunz, Moore) for re-election in the face of strong public opposition and probable defeat. Milton’s factions are batting 0.000

Milton’s political history has been plagued by continuous childish skirmishes between two middle-school-like factions:  Bentley-Moore-Bailey (BMB) vs. Lusk-Kunz-Thurman (LKT).  (For over a decade, Mohrig aligned with the LKT faction–and was despised by the BMB faction–but eventually entered into a bromance with Paul Moore and was backed by both the BMB and LKT factions in his failed 2023 re-election bid.)  Personal and petty disputes took precedence over citizen priorities.  However, beginning with the 2021 election, citizens have repeatedly rejected factional politics. In 2021, council members Bentley and Kunz both exited council. In 2023 Council Member Moore exited council; Council Member Mohrig was defeated; and faction-backed proxy Helen Gordon was defeated. In 2025, BMB’s proxy Yancy was defeated.

Considering Bentley’s pivotal role in the 2025 election, let’s focus on the BMB faction.  In 2021, BMB’s District 1 candidate finished third; Bentley bowed out of her District 2 re-election bid in the face of strong public opposition.  In 2023, the BMB faction (and LKT faction) supported Rick Mohrig’s re-election (District 3); nevertheless, Mohrig only managed to capture 40% of the vote; faction-backed District 1 challenger Helen Gordon lost by an even greater margin (to incumbent Carol Cookerly).  In 2025, BMB’s proxy Ike Yancy captured only 38% of the vote against Jan Jacobus, arguably the weakest incumbent in Milton’s electoral history.  And as discussed in Takeaway #1, the margin of victory would have been much larger but for the presence of other items on the ballot. Clearly, Yancy’s BMB association hurt–and probably doomed–his candidacy.

Let me be blunt.  The discredited BMB and LKT factions need to accept their clear and consistent rejection by voters.  Miltonites obviously want to leave behind the past to focus on the future.  There are serious issues in Milton that need to be debated and resolved.  Unfortunately, the BMB (and LKT) factions are blocking the emergence of a worthy and effective opposition that might expose these issues and offer compelling alternative solutions.  Bentley, et al. would best serve the community by stepping aside to allow a new generation of city leaders to enter the arena.

Takeaway #5:  Yancy’s Candidacy Ironically Undermined His Advocacy About Highway 9 Widening.

Challenger Yancy’s number one issue was the Highway 9 widening project—more specifically, his preference for narrow (4 foot) vs. wide (8 foot) sidewalks.  Go figure!  I’m stupefied that he would make this issue the centerpiece of his campaign.  It is not an issue that can take you to the promised land.  Moreover, Yancy’s obsession with sidewalk widths effectively placed the sidewalk width issue front-and-center on the ballot.  The city council election, in part, was made a referendum on Highway 9 sidewalk widths.  Accordingly, Yancy’s lopsided loss could reasonably be inferred to be a vote for wider sidewalks.  Even most (all but one) precincts encompassing Highway 9 rejected Mr. Yancy.  So irony of ironies, Yancy (unwittingly) hurt the cause he most cares about.

Note:  To his credit, Mr. Yancy has been a frequent and loud critic of the Highway 9 project, bringing much needed scrutiny to a sometimes troubled project.  For this, he deserves plaudits from citizens.  Hopefully, Yancy will continue to serve as a citizen watchdog for the Highway 9 project . . . although he likely needs to avoid the issue of sidewalk widths to maintain credibility.

Takeaway #6:  Council Should Not Interpret the Election Outcome as a Mandate or Endorsement

The current city council might be tempted to interpret Jacobus’ lopsided election win as a mandate, a rousing endorsement of their record, or both.  It was neither, and it would be a (big) mistake to assume otherwise.  Citizens were faced with an unappetizing choice between two unpalatable candidates . . . they unenthusiastically chose the better of the two.  That’s the long-and-short-of-it.  Based on the above discussion, Jacobus’ election (or more accurately, Yancy’s non-election) might best be interpreted as a rejection of Milton’s factions, which Yancy represented, rather than a loving embrace of the current council.  If any policy conclusions are to be drawn from the election, I would suggest citizens endorsed 1) the current Highway 9/Deerfield (renewal) master plan, which even Yancy supports, and 2) wider (vs. narrower) sidewalks along Highway 9.

Rather than patting themselves on the back, council would be well-advised to work on creating and executing a positive agenda for Milton’s future.  Unfortunately, for the past two years, the current council has had to expend much time, money, and effort on cleaning up messes from previous councils (particularly the 2022-23 council).  The biggest of these messes has been the Chang case.

Most importantly—and I cannot overemphasize this—the current council needs to understand that Milton will forever wallow in problems of its own making if it does not devote more attention to good governance . . . my passion since I began my advocacy 10+ years ago.  Good governance relates to HOW policy gets made and implemented.  Process and principles are essential to good policy outcomes.  Council must redouble its commitment to the core elements of good governance: accountability, fairness, rigor, responsiveness, integrity, transparency, and respect for the rule of law.  Good governance is not accomplished through window dressing: meaningless resolutions and the collection of phony awards.  Rather, council must focus on fundamentally reforming the architecture of local government and implementing better processes and procedures that incorporate the elements of good governance.

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim

Note: I am currently writing a blog post on former council member Laura Bentley. Because Bentley has become the de facto leader of the opposition (to Milton’s current council), it is important for citizens to better understand Ms. Bentley and her politics. This is especially important because of Ms. Bentley’s lack of written documentation of her current political positions, thus requiring reliance on other sources of information, particularly Ms. Bentley’s four-year record while on council.

More importantly, the rise and subsequent fall of Ms. Bentley as a political influencer is the most important thread in the story of Milton’s politics over the past decade. In fact, it is impossible to understand Milton’s politics without understanding the arc of Ms. Bentley’s political career.

Uncategorized

Jacobus Bests Yancy 62% to 38% to Retain District 3 City Council Seat

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Incumbent Jan Jacobus easily defeated challenger Ike Yancy for the District 3 Milton City Council seat.  Mr. Jacobus garnered a majority of votes in all (but one) precincts in Milton.

Congratulations to Mr. Jacobus!  And thanks to Mr. Yancy for stepping up and challenging Mr. Jacobus.  Milton benefits from competitive elections.

I have been poring over the election results and I will provide more detailed analysis and commentary in a later post.  Suffice to say that Miltonites—as they always do—selected the better candidate.  As I’ve discussed in previous posts, Mr. Yancy presented an unacceptable level of risk of 1) detrimental disruption at council and 2) serving as a conduit for interference from aggrieved former council members and a few wacko political operatives.

Over the past few weeks, the blog experienced a high volume of visitors seeking information on the election and candidates.  Thank you for your trust and confidence in the MC blog.  I especially appreciate readers so generously sharing the blog with fellow voters.  Following is a graphic showing the number of shares of the blog this election season on various social media platforms.  These shares vastly expand and amplify the impact of the MC blog.  Thank you.

More to come in the next blog post . . .

Advocating for Good Governance,

Tim

Uncategorized

Reminder . . . Tuesday is Election Day . . . District 3 Race is Competitive

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Voters:

A reminder.  Tuesday, November 4th is Election Day.  Early voting has concluded. 

The only competitive local race is the District 3 City Council seat.  Voting is at-large (for all city council seats), which means all Miltonites (regardless of where they live) can vote for the District 3 representative. 

Following is a link to my page providing links to useful information to help with your decision.  This includes links to candidates’ social media websites.  My 2025 Election Guide does not provide any commentary on the candidates.  I would especially recommend looking at the candidate finance reports . . . very interesting and revealing reading.  (See Note 1.)

2025 Election: One-Stop Shop For Candidate and Elections Information.

I am not endorsing a candidate in the District 3 election.  Neither candidate clears my bar for endorsement.  However, as I’ve explained in a recent blog post, incumbent Jan Jacobus seems preferable to challenger Ike Yancy.  Following is a link to my analysis and commentary on the District 3 race:

McFly Vs. Magoo:  Two Flyweights “Battle” It Out in District 3

In a nutshell, Jacobus is a passive, do-no-harm sort of candidate who has shown leadership on the Highway 9/Deerfield (renewal) master plan, which his opponent Yancy has heartily endorsed.  Conversely, Yancy offers a disruptive alternative, which voters may (perhaps understandably) desire.  However, there is good disruptive and bad disruptive.  Based on his posts (particularly at NextDoor and Facebook), Yancy strikes me as pretty clueless/uninterested (he very rarely comes to council) and overly reliant on a few former, discredited council members—Laura Bently, in particular–so highly susceptible to manipulation, I believe.  This is a recipe for unproductive chaos and disruption at council . . . a return to the extreme council dysfunction of 2022-23 when Mohrig and Moore were running amuck in city government . . . a lot of drama and little progress.  Additionally, my sense is that Yancy, because of his posts about diminishment of property values along Highway 9, would have to recuse himself from the only issue he really seems to care about:  the Highway 9 widening project.  It would seem that Yancy would best serve the community by continuing as a Highway 9 watchdog rather than as an ethically recused council member.

Finally, a warning.  In the closing days of the election, I’ve seen some questionable (and desperate) tactics by some Yancy supporters, particularly former council members and a few shady local political operatives.  Truth-in-Labeling is important.  Some endorsing organizations are just names, with nothing behind them (no internet presence, no funding, no members).  Don’t be fooled by labels like “conservative” or “concerned citizens.”  And be careful about PAC endorsements.  Research the PAC . . . use AI search engines to find out what these PACs really are about . . . you might be surprised.  Some former politicians and political hacks cynically believe that you are plain stupid, and they can dupe you with phony organizations and meaningless endorsements announced with great fanfare (including a lot of American Flag emojis).  They’re hawking political snake oil.  However, Milton voters have consistently proven they can easily see past the BS and choose the best candidates (while summarily disposing of wayward elected officials) . . . a lesson that Milton’s political miscreants never seem to learn.

In closing, thank you to my readers.  I appreciate your support over the past 10 years.  Over the past few weeks, blog traffic has steadily increased as election day approaches.  It cheers me that voters are seeking information to make informed decisions about the election.  It is committed and informed voters like you that make Milton so special.

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim

Note 1:  The campaign finance reports are especially revealing in that the discredited ex-council members and political hacks who are “backing” Yancy (and aspire to be his puppet-masters) certainly have not put their money where their (loud) mouths are.  Yancy reported no new contributions in his last campaign financial report.  Zero contributions other than a loan he made to his campaign.  This is not surprising as Milton’s political miscreants are mostly driven by self-interest.  One ex-council member has even shamefully re-purposed their campaign/political Facebook page to sell services . . . monetizing their once-upon-a-time political followers for self-enrichment purposes . . . likely a violation of both Facebook rules and federal election laws, but certainly an affront to common sense ethics (and to their business competitors).  You really can’t make this stuff up!  More about this switcheroo in a post-election blog post.

Added note: If ex-council members and local political jihadis aren’t willing to back up their words with money for Yancy, voters might logically wonder why they should even consider voting for Yancy? It’s a deja vu moment in Milton politics. It reminds me of Helen Gordon’s campaign in 2023. A lot of talk from Milton’s excommunicated political priesthood, but no money in the offering plate.

Uncategorized

McFly Vs. Magoo:  Two Flyweights “Battle” It Out in District 3

Posted on by Milton Coalition

I promised an analysis of the 2025 District 3 election in Milton, so here it is.  It is possible that this will be my only post before election day.  (See Note 1.)  We’ll see.  Perhaps, events will play out such that I feel obliged to publish additional posts.  BTW, early voting began October 13th.  Election day is November 4th. 

The District 3 race is the only competitive race this election cycle and pits a political George McFly (Back to the Future), incumbent Jan Jacobus, against a political Mr. Magoo, challenger Ike Yancy.  Suffice to say, the District 3 race is not a battle of the Titans, but rather more of a school-boy tussle between two political flyweights.  Unfortunately, citizens should not expect a ferocious debate about serious issues that Miltonites care about.

Let me be blunt.  Neither candidate deserves the honor and privilege of representing the fine citizens of Milton.  Miltonites deserve better . . . much better.  However, elections often present voters with suboptimal—and in this case, unsatisfactory–choices.  (That is why voters should have the option of “none-of-the-above” on ballots.)  And that is the case with the District 3 race.  Neither candidate clears the bar for acceptability.  However, neither candidate is so unacceptable that I feel compelled to endorse his opponent.

While I cannot endorse either candidate, there is a preferred candidate and that is Jan Jacobus. 

Below I will discuss my impressions—good but often bad—of both candidates.  I hope my analysis is useful to citizens.  However, I would certainly urge voters to attend a candidate meet-and-greet, to visit the candidates’ websites/Facebook pages, and to review each candidate’s campaign finance reports.  Following is a link to the Milton Coalition page providing links to each candidate’s website, Facebook page, etc.

2025 Election: One-Stop Shop For Candidate and Elections Information.

Following are my impressions of each candidate.

Jan Jacobus is the incumbent.  He is the George McFly in this race.  He is fundamentally a low-energy, passive, go-along-to-get-along council member.  He is the weakest member of council . . . an archetypal back-bencher.  I believe he only ran for council because the Crooked Creek HOA board (on which he served) decided it always needs a representative on council to protect/advance Crooked Creek’s interests.  Perhaps good for Crooked Creek, but potentially adverse to broader community interests.  Milton deserves council members that represent all citizens, not a narrow constituency. 

In 2021, Jacobus slid onto council without opposition.  And to my knowledge, before joining council, he did nothing to engage citizens about their concerns and aspirations.  At the time, I criticized Jacobus for this passivity.  Unfortunately, his lack of engagement carried over to Jacobus’s tenure on council . . . with one notable and important exception that I will discuss later.  Jacobus is not one to make waves.  He stood idly by while Council Members Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore ran amuck in Milton’s city government.  This includes the Paul Moore ethics scandal, council intrusion into HOA minutiae, and Milton’s corrupt election design process.  Jacobus even voted to eliminate a polling location in his own district.  Jacobus was the ONLY council member that remained aligned with Moore and Mohrig until the bitter end:  Moore’s withdrawal from the District 2 race and Mohrig’s stinging election defeat.  The other four council members (belatedly but thankfully) came to their senses and endorsed challengers Hene and Cranmer.  Jacobus said nothing about Mohrig’s bypassing the city manager to direct staff; about Mohrig’s misbehavior in designing Milton’s elections; about Mohrig’s ridiculous hacking claims; or about Mohrig’s trampling a citizen’s basic civil rights when he trespassed on said citizen’s property to conduct an unauthorized investigation.  Not a peep.  It reminds me of the quote from Edmund Burke:  “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.”

So given these troubling negatives, why the preference for Jacobus? 

First, there is one important policy issue where Jacobus has (belatedly) taken the lead:  the master plan for the Deerfield/Highway 9 area.  It took Phil Cranmer’s election to council to motivate Jacobus on this issue, but he has finally risen to the occasion and reportedly is the lead council member on this important initiative.  And it is certainly worth noting that  Jacobus’s challenger Yancy has been effusive in his praise for the proposed master plan.  So there is certainly an argument to be made that, given his leadership role in the Deerfield/Highway 9 master plan, Jacobus probably should be allowed finish his work on this important initiative.

Second, while I typically have a soft spot for challengers/underdogs (and the energy and new ideas they bring), I believe Jacobus’s council experience, particularly when contrasted with Yancy’s cluelessness, is a strength.

Third, Jacobus is a do-no-harm sort of candidate . . . much preferred to a potentially harmful candidate such as Mr. Yancy . . . as I will discuss below.

Now, let’s take a look at Ike Yancy, who is the challenger and underdog.  Yancy is the Mr. (J. Quincy) Magoo in the District 3 race.  Yancy’s defining characteristic is his cluelessness.  I’m not sure why he’s running and I’m not sure he even knows.  I’ve examined his NextDoor postings and campaign website/Facebook page and have come to the inescapable conclusion that he suffers from extreme political nearsightedness and lacks the will/means to remedy his political myopia.  I’ve never seen him speak at council or even attend council meetings.  Even now in the throes of an election campaign, he is not attending council meetings.  Troubling, to say the least.

Mr. Yancy’s singular focus is on the Highway 9 widening project.  I applaud Mr. Yancy for engaging on this issue.  He has been the loudest and most consistent critic of this project . . . and there has been much to criticize, including inadequate city supervision/engagement.  However, based on his most recent utterings on the issue, it seems Mr. Yancy is mostly fine with the current design.  When you strip back his musings on this issue—some of which are wild exaggerations (e.g., 100s of acres and 1000s of trees lost in Milton)—Mr. Yancy’s platform on Highway 9 boils down to the width of sidewalks.  He advocates for 4-foot vs. 8-foot (current design) sidewalks.  Highway 9 sidewalk widths seem to be the centerpiece of Yancy’s campaign.  It’s a relatively trivial issue that most citizens likely don’t care about.  And if they do, I suspect most would disagree with Mr. Yancy. 

So why is widening Highway 9 such a big deal for Mr. Yancy?  Well, Mr. Yancy lives in a townhome community along Highway 9.  This is a personal issue for him.  Yancy has been clear in asserting that the Highway 9 project is negatively impacting property values . . . that is, he has a financial stake in this matter.  On social media, he has ranted about the road widening project (and perhaps he is correct about its impact on property values).  But this gets us to a critical point.  If Yancy ascends to council, based on his postings about the financial impact of the Highway 9 project on homeowners like himself, it seems Yancy has a clear (financial) conflict of interest.  I believe Mr. Yancy would have to recuse himself when Highway 9 issues come before council.  That he does not realize this conflict speaks to his naiveté.  Citizens might recall that the Paul Moore ethics scandal consumed city resources and city council attention for over a year.  Despite spending $100,000+, Moore was found guilty of 3 ethics violations, including financial conflict-of-interest.  Perhaps Mr. Yancy will assert that he will assume the ethics risk and not recuse himself from Highway 9 project matters.  However, is it fair or responsible for Yancy to subject council and citizens to yet another drawn-out ethics inquiry that would shame the city and drain government resources and attention?  Considering Mr. Moore’s ethics convictions, I am quite sure that Mr. Yancy would not beat an ethics complaint filed against him.  And I believe that this time around, he would find little sympathy/support (unlike with Paul Moore) from council or city staff.  It strikes me that Yancy would have greater impact on Highway 9 issues continuing as a community advocate than as an elected but ethically recused council member.

One other point regarding Highway 9.  Council recently (September 15) approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia Department of Transportation regarding the Highway 9 project.  A perfect time for candidate Yancy to show up, address council, and voice his concerns, right?  Unfortunately, Mr. Yancy was a no-show.  Perhaps, even Mr. Yancy realizes his objections to the Highway 9 improvement project is not his ticket to city council.  Mind you, there are other serious issues that Mr. Yancy could run on and win.  However, he seems not to be aware of (most of) them.  Some of these issues (but not all) involve problems that his ex-council member supporters (like Laura Bentley) would prefer he not broach because of their complicity in creating these problems . . . so perhaps Mr. Yancy finds himself politically hamstrung regarding certain issues.

Enough about Highway 9.  I have several other concerns about Mr. Yancy.  Like Mr. Jacobus, Mr. Yancy was also a Mohrig supporter, albeit much more strident.  That should be a big red flag for voters.  Given Yancy’s unwavering support for Mohrig, in the face of so much misconduct by Mohrig, it seems fair to ask whether Yancy would comport himself in a similar fashion?  Would he bypass the city manager to direct staff (in violation of the Milton city charter)?  Would he conduct unauthorized investigations of citizens that violate the basic civil rights of those citizens?  Would Yancy observe Georgia’s open meetings/records laws?  Would Yancy countenance committees that operate like Milton’s errant election design committee?  Would Yancy lodge ridiculous complaints that waste valuable government resources?

Yet another issue is some of Mr. Yancy’s Nextdoor postings, which not only highlight his lack of situational awareness, but also raise concerns about his judgment and his potential for recklessness.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Yancy invoked his veteran status to criticize Mohrig’s opponent Phil Cranmer for not voting in municipal elections, never mind that Cranmer served on Milton’s Parks and Recreation Committee for 5 years prior to his election to council . . . a much more serious demonstration of civic duty (than voting).  Frankly, Mr. Yancy’s post was a cheap shot.  For Yancy, Cranmer’s failure to vote was an egregious civic sin that warranted a scathing Nextdoor post, while Mohrig’s trampling of a citizen’s basic civil liberties went uncommented upon.  This leads me to question Mr. Yancy’s judgment and/or lack of situational awareness.

A few other Nextdoor postings from Mr. Yancy are even more troubling.  In one posting, he posted a link to a salacious political video whose creator is anonymous.   The video was a hit piece that was short on facts and long on innuendo.  In another posting, Mr. Yancy provided a link to a radical media website that has been judged by non-partisan media fact-check organizations to be highly biased and non-factual.  Many of this media site’s story bylines are “staff writers.”  Let’s be honest . . . anonymous posters/creators/reporters can say anything; they are not credible.  By citing such anonymous sources, Mr. Yancy impugns his own credibility and provides troubling insights into how he gathers and processes information.  Such postings do not inspire confidence that Yancy is a person that will dig deep and rely on facts and logic to make decisions on behalf of citizens.

Lastly, I am concerned about Mr. Yancy’s connections to certain former council members, particularly Laura Bentley.  In 2023, when Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig exited council, the last of Milton’s political dinosaurs were put to pasture.  Good riddance.  For 17 years, Milton’s long-warring factions had bickered with each other over nonsense while important citizens’ priorities often languished.  The current council has had to repair a lot of damage associated with Bentley-Moore-Mohrig era (2018 – 2023) . . . with additional mending still to accomplish.  However, the current council is working well together and increasingly focused on Milton’s future, such as revitalizing the Deerfield/Highway 9 area (Mr. Jacobus’s focus area).  A emphasis on the future and citizen prerogatives needs to be maintained and intensified . . . and the ghosts of past councils need to be kept at bay.  Given his association with past politicians and his political cluelessness, a real danger exists that Mr. Yancy might (wittingly or unwittingly) provide these former council members an avenue for disrupting a future-leaning, citizen-centric council agenda.

Ordinarily, I am sympathetic to underdogs/challengers (having been one myself for much of my 10 years of involvement in local politics).  And council certainly does need a member that will more forcefully challenge the status quo, with a particular emphasis on improving Milton’s governance model (how things get done):  more accountability; increased transparency; higher integrity standards; improved competence; and greater fairness.  Unfortunately, Mr. Yancy does not strike me as such an agent for change, but rather he seems to be a throw-back to an ugly past that Milton needs to move beyond.

Having said all that, I applaud Mr. Yancy for challenging Mr. Jacobus and forcing him to earn his seat on council.  And I congratulate Yancy for his advocacy regarding Highway 9 (although I don’t agree with all his stances).  I realize my criticism of Mr. Yancy (and Mr. Jacobus) is harsh.  I do not mean to imply Yancy (or Jacobus) are bad people.  I suspect both are good fathers, sons, husbands, colleagues, neighbors, and friends.  However, Mr. Yancy’s obvious cluelessness combined with the questionable company he is keeping present a real-and-present danger.  Unfortunately, it is the case that clueless council members in the clutches of unscrupulous politicians and political activists are easily compromised and often corrupted.  The risk for such corruption seems high (and perhaps unacceptable) with Mr. Yancy.  Little such risk exists with Mr. Jacobus, who is a mostly do-no-harm, experienced council member who is (belatedly) providing positive leadership of the Deerfield/Highway 9 (re)design initiative. Jacobus seems the better of these two underserving candidates.

Advocating For Good Governance

Tim

Note 1:  Readers need to understand that posts like this one require a lot of time and effort.  Publishing a blog is not a trivial exercise.  It necessitates a big investment to discover facts; to work through the logic; to find the right message; to identify graphics; and to choose the right words.  A typical long-form post (like the above post) requires 10+ hours.