October 10, 2017

Council Member Bill Lusk has pooh-poohed Milton’s recent redistricting scandal as much ado about nothing.  The Milton Herald wrote about Mr. Lusk that he felt “the request was a minor change and he didn’t think it required a public discussion.”  Furthermore, Mr. Lusk was the only member of Council that complied with Ms. Thurman’s request for a letter supporting legislation to change the district.  Mr. Lusk made minor modifications to a form letter provided to him by Ms. Thurman.

I strongly disagree that the district change was minor.  As I have discussed (in more detail) in previous posts, Ms. Thurman should have vacated her seat when she moved outside her district.  Changing District 1’s boundaries meant that all of Milton’s voters—every one of them (as voting is at large)—were disenfranchised.  Furthermore, the one third of Milton voters that live in District 1 were denied the opportunity to run for the vacated seat.  So the redistricting was actually a major change that impacted all voters.  Furthermore, with this district change, Mr. Lusk’s actions revealed his propensity for non-transparency, even when changing Milton’s Charter.

Unfortunately, there is an even darker side to this story.  It is a story that Mr. Lusk would prefer that citizens not know.  You see, Mr. Lusk was the one person, other than Ms. Thurman, that most directly benefited from the redistricting.  By moving the district lines, Mr. Lusk eliminated a potential competitor for his seat.  Had the district lines not been changed, Ms. Thurman would have found herself in Mr. Lusk’s district and might have challenged him.  Additionally, Mr. Lusk and Ms. Thurman have been political allies since the founding of the City, so the district change kept their alliance intact.  So you see, Mr. Lusk was Ms. Thurman’s primary accomplice in clandestinely changing the district lines in Milton, so that he could eliminate a potential competitor while also keeping his voting bloc intact.  Mr. Lusk aided and abetted in the thwarting of democracy in Milton.

Recently, Mr. Lusk went on the offensive regarding the Redistricting Scandal.  I urge all citizens to watch the above video of a nearly 7-minute rant by Mr. Lusk during a Special City Council Meeting called to extend qualifying period for the District 3 Council Seat.  Note the following when watching the video:

• Mr. Lusk incredibly claims that the redistricting was “perfectly transparent.”  Quite the opposite was true.  At the time, not a single citizen was made aware of the redistricting.  No opportunity for public input was provided.
• Mr. Lusk claims that all of Council participated in the redistricting.  This is false.  Notice Mayor Lockwood shaking his head in response to this assertion.  The truth is that Mr. Thurman worked with a state representative for 2+ months to change the district lines.  Ms. Thurman only apprised Council of the redistricting as the bill to change the district was being introduced in the Georgia State Assembly.  Only Bill Lusk submitted a letter supporting the change.
• Mr. Lusk likens the redistricting to extending the election qualification period.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  No less than 5 times, the City Attorney advised Council that the qualification period extension was mandated by state law.  Contrast that with the fact that the City Attorney was kept entirely in the dark about the redistricting.  He likely would have advised that the redistricting be added to a Council agenda for discussion and approval.
• Mr. Lusk asserts that the City’s issues stem from a personal agenda . . . yes, Mr. Lusk’s personal agenda.  Other than Ms. Thurman, Mr. Lusk had the most to gain from the redistricting, as described above.
• Note Mr. Lusk’s use of the word “lynch” to describe citizens’ actions to expose malfeasance in our city government.  Such incendiary language has no place in our public dialogue, particularly coming from an elected official.  Rather than excoriating citizens for exposing corruption in our city, Mr. Lusk should be congratulating citizen watchdogs.
• Mr. Lusk accuses his critics of “taking down the City.”  Unfortunately, he chose the wrong adverb . . . citizens are rather taking back the City . . . taking it back from the Special Interests and their agents on Council, like Mr. Lusk.

After watching Mr. Lusk’s rant, ask yourself:  Is this the best we can do in Milton?  Is Mr. Lusk really the best choice to represent me on Council for the next 4 years?  As someone who has attended nearly every city council meeting for the last 2 years, I can confidently assert that we can do better . . . and must do better.  I am voting for Laura Bentley.

(I have re-published some blog posts from the Redistricting Scandal.)

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim Becker