Attached is an Open Records Request (ORR) that I sent yesterday to the city. The ORR requests partisan activist Lisa Cauley and Council Member Rick Mohrig provide documented substantiation of cost savings they are claiming for Milton self-running its elections. (I have submitted another ORR requesting the City’s original and current business cases for running its municipal elections.)
As Council Member Carol Cookerly stated at City Council’s last meeting, Milton’s elections problems are “escalating.” The City is in a tight bind. Every move the City makes only worsens matters. And that is why Ms. Cookerly convincingly and wisely urged City Council to reconsider FuCo running Milton’s 2023 municipal elections to deescalate the mounting “burdens” and (I would contend) to de-risk the 2023 municipal elections. City Manager and Elections Superintendent Krokoff echoed Cookerly’s concerns stating that he was confident he could “mechanically” pull off the election, but his main concern centered on citizens’ sinking trust and confidence in the elections reflected in the increasing public outcry about election integrity and voter rights.
On Monday night, Council Member Rick Mohrig and partisan activist Lisa Cauley only made matters worse with exaggerated claims of cost savings from Milton self-running it municipal elections. Remember that Cauley and Mohrig (along with Paul Moore) were members of the now infamous Elections Feasibility Committee (EFC) and alas both should hew to higher standards of honesty. Unfortunately, the EFC was steeped in sloppiness, dishonesty and secrecy going back to its murky creation and its initial meetings, which were held behind closed doors, without any notes kept of the proceedings. The EFC’s elections incompetence, duplicity, and lack of transparency persist to the current day . . . the result an elections process steered by partisans lacking in elections expertise.
On Monday night, in general public comment, Ms. Cauley projected savings of “at least $200,000.” Not to be outdone, Mr. Mohrig projected $250,000 in cost savings. See above excerpt from the EFC’s December 2022 recommendations report. Cauley and Mohrig’s savings are 75% to 119% higher than the EFC’s estimated cost savings. Cauley and Mohrig’s estimates are laughable.In fact, cost savings estimates are likely decreasing considering theCity’s elections costs have been rising substantially. Consider just 3 items. $10,000 was prudently added for contingency; a third polling location will cost $11,243; and Milton’s elections consultant is being paid $12,000 more than budgeted. These 3 underestimated items by themselves total $33,243, thereby pushing the city’s estimated 2023 elections cost from $72,254 to $105,497 . . . a 46% increase from the EFC’s December 2022 estimates. These 3 additional costs drive down estimated savings to $81,000 to $84,000 . . . or $40,500 to $42,000 per year when annualized . . . barely 0.1% of Milton’s annual budget . . . and the savings will likely continue to shrink as EFC’s shoddy business case makes a rendezvous with reality.
It is unclear what Cauley and Mohrig assumed would be FuCo’s cost to run Milton’s 2023 municipal election. However, in February, FuCo capped elections costs at $5.72M for Fulton County. My rough calculations (using 2 different methods) indicate the FuCo would charge Milton no more than $225,000 to $235,000. (Note: There is a true-up based on actual votes per locality, so the final costs are ultimately unknown and unknowable at this time. And there are a few other unknowns. However, FuCo costs can be ball-parked based on reasonable assumptions.) Comparing these estimated FuCo maximum costs with Milton’s costs means that Cauley and Mohrig’s estimated cost savings of $200,000 to $250,000 are an impossibility for 2023. Pure fantasy! And that is why I submitted the ORR . . . Cauley and Mohrig need to put up or shut up . . . admit that they have no support for their projections or else cough up substantiation of their claims (if they are keeping their own set of books on municipal elections).
Cauley and Mohrig are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. There are only 2 answers they can provide to my ORR, and both answers will prove their cost savings assertions to be false. The first answer is they provide NO substantiation of their savings claims, thereby conceding they pulled their cost savings estimates out of thin air. The second answer is they provide support for their figures that (I am sure) can be easily refuted (not unlike the calculations I provided above). Of course, it is possible that Cauley or Mohrig will engage in some transparent sort of verbal sleight-of-hand.
My ORR serves other purposes. I want to call attention to Cauley’s operating in an ill-defined, quasi-official role. Citizens operating in such roles are problematic as I explain in my letter. I believe the city makes itself vulnerable to legal challenges by employing citizens, especially partisan activists, in designing elections (or for that matter in any other important city functions) without any adequate definition of their relationship/arrangement with the City.
My other purpose in submitting an ORR is to highlight the aforementioned dishonesty and lack of process rigor as just more examples (as if more were needed) of a long and deep pattern of elections incompetence and duplicity stretching back to the EFC’s formation. There is so much misbehavior here—much of it from top Milton government officials—that an independent investigation is needed that is conducted either by 1) Milton (hiring an independent investigator) or 2) the Secretary of State. Milton’s citizens should demand accountability and transparency.
Advocating for Election Integrity and Voting Rights,
Tim
Note: I have long prided myself on keeping the Milton Coalition Blog strictly non-partisan. In local politics and governance, I have always prioritized principles over party, politics, and partisanship. I will continue to adhere to non-partisanship with my blog posts. However, because of the partisan sensitivities around elections, I feel compelled to explain my political leanings to demonstrate my independence and objectivity. I am an independent, Libertarian-leaning, Constitution-loving, patriotic, Ronald Reagan Conservative and proud of it. (I proudly served our great nation as a US Navy nuclear submarine officer for nearly 8 years.) However, right is right. Basic rights and fairness are at stake. The election issues I am exposing transcend party and politics. I refuse to stand by and let certain council members and political partisans destroy the fairness and integrity of Milton’s elections.
(Correction on July 28th to reflect correct EFC savings estimates. Original estimates cited were lower.)
Last night, Milton City Council discussed municipal elections in Milton. I am going to cover the good, the bad, and the ugly from city council’s meeting.
First, the Good. Last night, Milton City Council backtracked and added a District 3 polling location (in a 7-0 vote), reversing its decision (in a 4-3 vote) from May 1st.It was a much-deserved smackdown for Paul Moore, Rick Mohrig, and partisan activist Lisa Cauley. It was a rejection of the injection of partisanship into the design of Milton’s non-partisan (by design) municipal elections.
First, a special thank you to Milton’s citizens for once again rising to the occasion and showing politicians in Milton that they—the citizens—are in charge. Not Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig. And not partisan activist Lisa Cauley and her vanishingly small and shrinking band of hyper-partisan associates. For the past 18 months, Moore and his sidekick Mohrig have dominated government in Milton; they have kept good governance hostage to personal and partisan agendas. Paul Moore’s never-ending (14+ months and counting) ethics fiasco still haunts and embarrasses the City . . . the gift that keeps on taking. I remind readers that Moore was found guilty of 3 ethics charges by the unanimous decision of a 3-attorney ethics panel. He lost his appeal at Superior Court and was denied a hearing at Appellate Court. For nearly a year, Moore and Mohrig have also wasted copious amounts of staff and council time with petty White Columns HOA issues. But the elections fiasco has inflicted the most damage on the city. Citizens have had enough. They are fed up . . .
Last night, the Moore-Mohrig duo was overthrown by citizens. Moore and Mohrig have certainly been wounded by Moore’s ethics troubles and by their intrusion into HOA minutiae. However, it was with the elections initiative that Moore and Mohrig seriously overplayed their hand.Feeling citizens’ increasing ire and an increasing deficit of trust, a previously over-indulgent council finally caved to overwhelming public opinion. The switch from a District 3 to a District 2 polling location (followed by council’s rejection of adding a third District 3 polling place) was a bridge too far for most Miltonites across the political spectrum. Furthermore, citizens were disgusted by the ethical misbehaviorin Milton’s election initiative exposed by me at the blog using the City’s responses to 7 Open Records Requests (3 from Appen Media and 4 from me). Citizens rebelled through email, texts, and phone calls.
Last night, in rapid succession, Jan Jacobus, Mohrig, and Moore all folded their cards, making various and sundry excuses for their earlier votes against a District 3 polling place. They all cited a powerful public outcry. Duh? (However, Paul Moore made no mention of his earlier reasoning that District 3 voters did not deserve a polling location because of their historically low voter turnout.) Of course, that public outcry only happened because I began blogging about this issue . . . just 8 days ago. In that time,the Milton Coalition blog has experienced a combined2000+ blog views and email opens. Such a response warms my heart. However, this sort of citizen rebellion is typical of Miltonites. I have been involved in Milton politics since 2014. With regular frequency, I have witnessed Miltonites giving wayward politicians their comeuppance on various issues and turning misbehaving elected officials out of office.
Very few incumbent council members have survived the three-term limit. Only two, Joe Lockwood and Joe Longoria, survived 3 terms. Over the past 17 years, 6 incumbents have been turned out of office; another 3 incumbents, facing certain defeat, chose not to run. It is a cautionary tale that Moore and Mohrig have failed to learn. I believe Team M&M will suffer inglorious defeat . . . paradoxically in the elections they helped to design. However, they will do a lot of damage to Milton on their way down. I predict that Moore and Mohrig will inject hyper-partisanship into Milton’s non-partisan municipal races, including the use of outside partisan shock-troops. At this point, partisanship is the only card they can play. I suspect they will hold themselves up as the true standard-bearers of the Republican Party. However, I don’t expect that Moore and Mohrig, who are radioactive with the Republican political establishment, will garner many Republican endorsements.
Now the Bad . . . Last night, Council probably missed its last chance to avoid the election abyss and convince Fulton County to run Milton’s elections. Council Member Carol Cookerly bravely, passionately, and articulately argued for the Fulton County option . . . a position for which she will take some flak in the short run, but which will likely benefit her in the long run. Cookerly clearly went on record supporting the FuCo option. She cited her “fiduciary responsibility” in recommending this “prudent” course. She cited “encumbrances” that “created a burden” for Milton. I assume she meant the many errors (of incompetence and integrity) that leave Milton’s elections vulnerable to legal challenges. She rightly characterized elections as risky and often controversial . . . by their nature. She also rightly noted that Milton’s problems were experiencing escalation not minimization, citing a growing gap between public perception and reality. It is important to understand that Cookerly owns a PR (and marketing) firm; this sort of issue falls squarely in her wheelhouse. Cookerly cited a “drain” on city assets: time, reputation, etc. She spoke of the necessity for “caution” and a “measured” approach (given the city’s precarious situation) ending her comments by imploring council to do what is “long-term” in the “best interests” of the city. Unfortunately, Council summarily dismissed Ms. Cookerly’s arguments; there was ZERO discussion of the FuCo option. I predict that Council will dearly regret its decision to forgo FuCo-run elections.
Now for the Ugly . . . Rick Mohrig’s and Lisa Cauley’s comments about costs savings. Before we get to Mohrig’s wild and unfounded assertions about cost savings, I want to provide some context. Insiders in City government will all tell you that Milton’s election initiative started with Rick Mohrig. Over the years, I have had several discussions with Rick about state and national politics. My impression from those discussions is that Rick has fried his brain through constantly listening to political talk radio. He is a sponge for political conspiracy theories . . . no matter how far-fetched.
In the wake of fraud claims after the 2020 presidential elections, Mohrig set out on a mission to convince Milton to self-run municipal elections. He was a disciple in a broader movement in North Fulton advocating for all cities to self-run municipal elections. I always found this strange as municipal elections are non-partisan. Candidates do not have an R or D next to their names and my observation is that partisanship–to the extent it infects local elections–is relatively light and subtle. Accordingly, the connection between the alleged stolen presidential election and self-running municipal elections was always unclear and tenuous—at best. Perhaps I am missing something. And besides, Milton’s Strategic Plan (approved in March 2021) makes absolutely no mention of elections. NONE. Nevertheless, later in the year, an Elections Feasibility Committee (EFC) was formed composed of 2 staff members plus 2 political partisans and 2 council members. Mohrig appointed Lisa Cauley to the EFC. Cauley and Council Member Moore are BFFs, so I suspect that is how Paul Moore got looped in. And Mark Amick, a fake Trump elector who claims to have witnessed thousands of votes wrongly assigned to Biden in 2020 recount, was appointed but no one knows how or by whom.
I believe the City likely broke its own laws (and perhaps state laws) in establishing and operating such a committee, which initially met behind closed doors (i.e., no public notice or participation) at least half a dozen times and kept no records. As the city’s responses to ORRs show, the EFC seems to have focused on certain right-wing orthodoxies around elections, such as hand-counting paper ballots. Higher-ups in FuCo’s Republican Party seem to have had some involvement . . . Milton was clearly part of a larger partisan project.
The committee also seems to have been driven by long simmering grudges against Fulton County. However, Fulton County is implementing significant election reforms—some mandated by the state. Further, I understand some Fulton elected officials were not real keen on overly harsh criticism of the county and successfully lobbied to cap FuCo’s election costs (partly to provide cover for other North Fulton cities that stepped back from self-running their municipal elections). At the same time, hysterical claims about elections from both the far left and far right were wearing thin with average citizens, so the election integrity argument (the original impetus for the elections initiative) was no longer resonating. Accordingly, the EFC fell back on asserting cost savings to be the sole reason (excuse?) for the elections initiative.
The cost savings obsession has hamstrung the Election Superintendent and had unintended consequences, such as under-budgeting for a consultant. The EFC’s cost savings have always been specious. And as often happens, the business case is not surviving contact with reality. In any case, costs should be a secondary driver of elections; honesty, fairness, rigor, and transparency should be the primary drivers.Voters across the political spectrum must have unceasing trust and confidence in election integrity.
Rick Mohrig is not one to let the truth get in the way of a good story. Mohrig has been touting savings as high as $250,000. And Ms. Cauley claimed $200K in savings. Both figures exceed the EFC’s estimated costs for FuCo to run elections! (See above excerpt from EFC recommendations report.) No one has any idea where these savings estimates are coming from. In its December 2022 overly optimistic report recommending Milton conduct its own municipal elections, the EFC estimated 2023 cost savings at $114K – $117K and savings in later years were estimated at $130K to $133K. However, since that time, FuCo lowered its costs to conduct elections and Milton’s own cost estimates have been rising, so the estimated savings have been shrinking.
Insiders at city hall are now saying that steady-state savings are likely only around $50K per election. And remember that municipal elections occur every two years, so annual savings would be only $25K. For perspective, consider that the City’s annual budget is around $38M, so annual elections savings would be 0.066% of Milton’s annual budget . . . a rounding error hardly worth the effort expended especially considering opportunity costs and the risks. However, it gets worse. The City has not included any staff time in its cost estimates. I suspect inclusion of such time would likely wipe out most/all cost savings.
And remember, Milton has achieved these meagre/nonexistent savings by drastically reducing service levels: no Sunday voting; no early voting in Alpharetta or any place outside Milton; fewer election day polling locations. And in slashing these service levels, the City is merely shifting its costs to citizens, as voters have to drive further to vote, wasting time and money (e.g., gas, auto wear-and-tear). Conservatively assume 3000 voters and an average $10 per voter in lost time and increased travel costs. That’s $30K. My sense is that considering total costs (to the city and to citizens), self-running Milton’s elections might actually cost citizens more than FuCo. And consider one last and very important element of this elections fiasco: opportunity costs. Could the City have better invested resources in other real and more substantial cost savings opportunities rather than investing in a clearly partisan political project that produced littl/no/negative savings to citizens when ALL costs are considered?
Bits and Pieces. I want to remind citizens about my Bits and Pieces page at the website where I provide posts for citizens that want to dig even deeper into local politics. I will be posting more at this page, including my impressions of 3 citizens that spoke last night in favor of Milton self-running its municipal elections. Actually, these citizens came out to attack me and the blog . . . Jimmy Crack Corn and I don’t care . . . and bless their hearts. Following is a link to Bits and Pieces:
Advocating for Election Integrity and Voting Rights Protection,
Tim
Note1: Lisa Cauley was a member of the infamous Election “Feasibility” Committee. I intentionally refer to Ms. Cauley, President of Fulton Republican County Women, as a “partisan activist” in the blog. She does not conform to my definition of a true Republican and certainly not my definition of a true Conservative.
Note 2: I have long prided myself on keeping the Milton Coalition Blog strictly non-partisan. In local politics and governance, I have always prioritized principles over party, politics, and partisanship. I will continue to adhere to non-partisanship with my blog posts. However, because of the partisan sensitivities around elections, I feel compelled to explain my political leanings to demonstrate my independence and objectivity. I am an independent, Libertarian-leaning, Constitution-loving, patriotic, Ronald Reagan Conservative and proud of it. (I proudly served our great nation as a US Navy nuclear submarine officer for nearly 8 years.) However, right is right. Basic rights and fairness are at stake. The election issues I am exposing transcend party and politics. I refuse to stand by and let certain council members and political partisans destroy the fairness and integrity of Milton’s elections.
Milton Herald Story. Today the Milton Herald published an article about the controversy swirling around Milton’s rejection of a District 3 polling location. I first broke this important story last Thursday (July 20th) in a blog post. The Milton Herald’s article (by Amber Perry) is definitely worth reading and provides confirmation of my earlier blog post. Following is a link.
The article mentions that Stacey Abrams’ Fair Fight and other progressive groups have protested to the City. My hope is that the Milton Herald will continue to investigate and report on the shameful elections fiasco in Milton. Ms. Perry should contact the key players for comment, including the involved partisan activists. There is also much more to this story that demands further investigation, including back-room interference from two council members and from partisan activists.
To its great credit, Appen Media has done an excellent job reporting about Milton and other North Fulton cities’ elections initiatives. Following are links to many other (not all) Milton Herald stories about (or related to) Milton’s election initiative. The bolded hyperlinks are the stories I believe are more interesting, including how Milton’s sister cities wisely stepped back from the brink. This list has been updated and reflects articles published through October 20, 2023:
EFC Recommended District 3 Polling Location at Milton Public Safety Complex (MPSC)!!!!!!! This past weekend I watched most of city council’s deliberations about running its own municipal elections. This includes the Election Feasibility Committee’s (EFC) presentation of recommendations to city council. And surprise of surprises! The EFC actually recommended polling locations in District 1 and . . . drumroll . . . District 3 at the MPSC (not District 2).
Mark Amick presented the EFC’s operational recommendations and proposed the MPSC as a voting location based on population density and Milton’s traffic patterns. This is important because partisan activists have been loudly complaining that city council is not following the EFC’s recommendations chapter-and-verse. However, we’ve not heard a peep from these activists about city council not following the EFC’s voting location recommendation. Hmm? And unfortunately, no one in city government caught this error; no one bothered to actually reference the EFC’s recommendations. Chalk it up to all-too-typical incompetence at City Hall.
The switch-up from a District 3 polling location to a District 2 polling location got accomplished in later council meetings. It was first suggested by Jan Jacobus, with Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig piling on. Of course, Mr. Moore was more than willing to make it easier for District 2 voters to vote, as he is from District 2 and has a (small and shrinking) base of support there; it benefits Mr. Moore to make it as convenient as possible for these District 2 supporters to vote. However, this inconvenient fact (of the switch in polling locations) makes the city even more vulnerable to legal challenges. It was originally and wrongly reported that the city failed to add a third polling location in District 3 when in fact the City replaced a District 3 polling location with a District 2 voting location (and later refused to add back the District 3 polling location). Worse, Mr. Moore cited the higher proportion of District 2 voters (than District 3 voters) participating in elections as justification for switching polling locations . . . essentially opining that District 3 voters should be punished for historically low turnout. I suspect Mr. Moore’s rationalization will provide much fodder for legal challenges.
Ms. Nuriddan’s Deletion of Text Communications.After a week of stalling, Milton’s City Attorney finally coughed up the following email from Milton’s election consultant, Vernetta Nuriddan . . . and it is a shocker. I had asked for Ms. Nuriddan’s text messages with city staff and council members Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig. I was especially interested in texts with the two council members. Well, Ms. Nuriddan responded that she “routinely” deletes all “text messages regarding elections policy, governance, or oversight.” My understanding is that Ms. Nuriddan’s contract with the city requires she retain all project communications and that such communications are property of the City. Accordingly, it would seem Ms. Nuriddan is in (material) breach of her contract. I will leave it to readers to decide whether Ms. Nuriddan’s alleged deletion of texts is truthful or not. To date, Ms. Nuriddan has shown refreshing integrity; however, deletion of her text messages certainly now calls her integrity into question.
So the plot around Milton’s elections thickens. If the plot thickens any more, you won’t be able to cut it with a chain saw.
Advocating For Elections Integrity,
Tim
Note: I have long prided myself on keeping the Milton Coalition Blog strictly non-partisan. In local politics and governance, I have always prioritized principles over party, politics, and partisanship. I will continue to adhere to non-partisanship with my blog posts. However, because of the partisan sensitivities around elections, I feel compelled to explain my political leanings to demonstrate my independence and objectivity. I am an independent, Libertarian-leaning, Constitution-loving, patriotic, Ronald Reagan Conservative and proud of it. (I proudly served our great nation as a US Navy nuclear submarine officer for nearly 8 years.) However, right is right. Basic rights and fairness are at stake. The election issues I am exposing transcend party and politics. I refuse to stand by and let certain council members and political partisans destroy the fairness and integrity of Milton’s elections.
The above screenshot is from the Election Consultant’s July Report. In her monthly report, Milton’s elections consultant, Vernetta Nuriddan, states “I believe that the council erred when two incumbents on the November ballot were empowered to close Election Day polls in areas with high concentrations of people of color.” The two incumbents in question are . . . I’ll give you one guess . . . yes, Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore. (I am attaching the full consultant’s report. See page 4 to read above recommendation.)
Milton’s original election design (December 2022) called for only 2 polling locations in only Districts 1 and 3. However, later in a sneaky electoral sleight-of-hand, council members Jacobus, Mohrig, and Moore advocated for replacing the District 3 polling location with a District 2 polling location, which council then approved. Conveniently, there was no reference the original election design recommendations; however, Mr. Moore did insert his foot in his mouth and cited low voter turnout as a reason to deny District 3 a polling location. Later, council refused to add back the District 3 polling location. District 3 has Milton’s highest concentration of Democratic voters and voters who are people of color. (It is also the most logical location for a polling location due to traffic patterns in Milton.) In April 2023, Milton Elections Superintendent Steve Krokoff recommended adding a third polling location in District 3 (cost: only around $4,500 per year for municipal elections after 2023). Seeing the injustice in only 2 polling locations, Mayor Peyton Jamison made an impassioned plea for a District 3 polling location. However, Jamison was voted down 4-3. The four council members voting against a District 3 polling location (make a note of this when you vote) were Paul Moore, Rick Mohrig, Andrea Verhoff, and Jan Jacobus.
Over many months, Ms. Nuriddan has been consistent in her assertion (even before she was hired) that the City of Milton must be much more careful about council interference in elections.Once the City is within the elections cycle (after February 1st) and has named an Elections Superintendent, Ms. Nuriddan asserts that city council must butt out. Nuriddan was even uncomfortable with Mohrig’s involvement in her hiring. In emails and texts over many months, Ms. Nuriddan warned of elections interference from council members and from partisan activists.Ms. Nuriddan was troubled by Milton’s general sloppiness in its elections planning and implementation.
Ms. Nuriddan cites state law (SB202) in supporting her position. According to Ms. Nuriddan, SB202 defines the role of Election Superintendent, “which includes selecting and preparing polling locations.” Ms. Nuriddan implies that Krokoff should be making all elections decisions and Council should no longer have any say-so. It is common sense (except in Milton) that elected officials should be excluded from tampering with upcoming elections. Individual incumbent council members certainly should not be interfering behind the scenes in any way with election planning and execution. However, emails and texts show that Moore, Mohrig and political partisans inserted themselves into Milton’s election planning and implementation. There is rich irony in Moore and Mohrig’s strong-arming Krokoff into hiring Nuriddan, who in turn has criticized their meddling. There is an instance of Mohrig actually assigning an election task to Republican activist Lisa Cauley. (And communications show that Krokoff was also tasking Cauley with election action items.)
In her report, Ms. Nuriddan recommends that if the city is committed to only 2 election day polling locations, then the city should consider shifting one of the polling locations to District 3. Because Moore and Mohrig were “empowered to close election day polls in areas with high concentrations of people of color,” Nuriddan cites state law to warn that “an election contest could be made by a losing candidate on the grounds of misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any primary or election official or officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result. O.C.G.A. 21-2-522.” (Ms. Nuriddan underlined the above passage for emphasis.)
Citizens, this is as bad as it gets! Ms. Nuriddan is the expert that Moore and Mohrig pressured Krokoff to hire! I assume she knows what she is talking about. In her report, Nuriddan clearly sounds the alarm that Milton, through council’s actions, has made itself vulnerable to legal challenges to its elections . . . challenges that will embarrass the City andcost taxpayers in legal bills. Ms. Nuriddan asserts that Milton’s election design discriminates based on race and that such discrimination is a legitimate basis for legal challenges. She also asserts that Milton erred in allowing incumbents Moore and Mohrig to “close election day polls in areas with high concentrations of people of color” . . . in advance of 2023 elections in which Moore and Mohrig would be running for re-election. You really can’t make this stuff up!
Citizens, none of this dysfunction at City Hall should surprise you. It is exactly what you would expect from allowing sitting council members and political partisans with little elections experience/expertise to operate in secret to design and plan elections. From the get-go, Milton’s elections initiative was poorly and dishonestly planned and executed, which is ironic considering the initial impetus for Milton’s elections initiative was concern about election integrity in the wake of the 2020 presidential elections.
Ms. Nurridan’s criticism does not stop at election disenfranchisement, illegal council interference, and possible legal challenges to election integrity. Ms. Nuriddan also criticizes the city for taking risky shortcuts in its elections planning; limiting her ability to be effective/efficient; and recklessly skimping on legal resources/reviews. I will address these issues in another blog post.
In closing, my sincere hope is that, in the 2023 elections, Milton’s voters, especially voters in District 3, will soundly reject Moore and Mohrig’s elections meddling and exile them forever to political Siberia. My hope is also that Miltonites will reach out to the press. This is an important story that needs to be broadcast much more broadly.
Advocating For Free, Fair, and Honest Elections,
Tim
Note 1: I received Ms. Nurridan’s report through an Open Records Request. Ms. Nuriddan was supposed to present her report at the July 17th Milton City Council Working Session. However, at the last minute, the working session was mysteriously cancelled due to lack of a quorum. My understanding is that Ms. Nurridan was supposed to present at a rescheduled working session on Wednesday (July 19th), but that session never was scheduled. Rather, there was a Special Called Council Meeting on July 19th where council went into Excecutive Session. Folks, something funny is going on here. The City needs to come clean about what seems like increasing confusion and dissension about city elections.The secrecy needs to stop.
Note: I have long prided myself on keeping the Milton Coalition Blog strictly non-partisan. In local politics and governance, I have always prioritized principles over party, politics, and partisanship. I will continue to adhere to non-partisanship with my blog posts. However, because of the partisan sensitivities around elections, I feel compelled to explain my political leanings to demonstrate my independence and objectivity. I am an independent, Libertarian-leaning, Constitution-loving, patriotic, Ronald Reagan Conservative and proud of it. (I proudly served my country as a US Navy nuclear submarine officer for nearly 8 years.) However, right is right. Basic rights and fairness are at stake. The election issues I am exposing transcend party and politics. I refuse to stand by and let certain council members and political partisans destroy the fairness and integrity of Milton’s elections.
North Korea is once again in the news with the defection of a US soldier. This news story reminded me of a favorite photo: a satellite image of the Korean peninsula at night, with the South bathed in bright light and the North shrouded in darkness. The photo provides a pictorial metaphor for the stark contrast between free and democratic nations and repressive and dictatorial nations. And it reminds us that free, fair, and honest elections are foundational to our democracy. Voting rights are sacrosanct. Election design is not about minimizing costs or about wild conspiracy theories or about dishonestly achieving partisan political advantage. Elections are about integrity and equal access to the ballot . . . or should be.
Many citizens on the left and right have warned about existential threats to democracy being perpetrated by their political opponents on the other side of the political spectrum. Once, I thought such warnings to be vast exaggerations. Not any more. Over many months, I have researched and analyzed Milton’s two-year initiative to design and run its own elections. From its murky beginning to the present day, Milton’s election initiative has been characterized by dishonesty, secretiveness, incompetence, and partisanship. Whoever thought it was a good idea to allow sitting council members (Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig) and their partisan allies (e.g., Lisa Cauley, President of Fulton County Republican Women) to design and then interfere in planning/implementation of Milton’s elections? Even Milton’s election consultant, Vernetta Nuriddan, repeatedly warned the City about this issue.
I believe Milton’s election initiative is so fatally flawed that it is impossible to have any trust and confidence in Milton’s running its own elections in 2023. The damage is not repairable. I believe the only option for Milton is to convince Fulton County to run the 2023 municipal elections. This will require the city to eat a bellyful of crow and it will likely require intervention from county and state Republican leaders, like FuCo Commissioner Bob Ellis and State Representative Jan Jones. However, at this point, FuCo-run elections are the most prudent and least risky option for the City of Milton.
So what can the average citizen do? Following is some practical advice.
First,direct Miltonites to my blog.
Second,write to the mayor, city council, the city manager, and city attorney and express your dissatisfaction with Milton’s election initiative and urge them to engage Fulton County to run Milton’s 2023 elections. Following are their email addresses:
Third,come to city council and express your opinion. You will need to complete a speaker card, which is easy to do, and submit it to the City Clerk. City council meetings are held at city hall in Crabapple. The address is 2006 Heritage Walk, Milton, GA 30004. For directions, click this link: Directions to City Hall. The city maintains a calendar with all the key meeting dates and times: City Calendar. If you click on a meeting, additional links are provided to the meeting agenda, packet, streaming video, and other useful meeting information.
Fourth, encourage your friends and neighbors to engage.
Fifth, vote in this fall’s elections for candidates that will uphold ethics and election integrity in Milton.
Advocating For Free, Fair, and Honest Elections,
Tim
Note: I have long prided myself on keeping the Milton Coalition Blog strictly non-partisan. In local politics and governance, I have always prioritized principles over party, politics, and partisanship. This is partly because I believe partisanship does not translate well to the local level. And in any case, elections in Milton are supposed to be non-partisan. I will continue to adhere to non-partisanship with my blog posts. However, because of the partisan sensitivities around elections, I feel compelled to explain my political leanings to demonstrate my independence and objectivity. I am an independent, Libertarian-leaning, Constitution-loving, patriotic, Ronald Reagan Conservative and proud of it. (I proudly served my country as a US Navy nuclear submarine officer for nearly 8 years.) However, right is right. Basic rights and fairness are at stake. The election issues I am exposing transcend party and politics. I refuse to stand by and let certain council members and political partisans destroy the fairness and integrity of Milton’s elections.
Miltonites deserve a government as great as the people that live here. Right now, as you will read, local government is failing you. Basic election integrity hangs in the balance. The only way citizens can right the wrongs discussed herein is to engage. The first step in engagement is to forward this email or the MC blog link.
Yesterday, in Part 1 of this post, I discussed the work of Milton’s Election Feasibility Committee (EFC). The EFC was officially disbanded in late 2022. However, as you will see, 3 of the 4 players continued to exert influence over Milton’s election process—mostly in the background. The 3 players in this second chapter of this story are Council Members Rick Mohrig, Council Member Paul Moore, Republican activist Lisa Cauley (President of Fulton County Republican Women). A fourth player, Karen Dubin (Recording Secretary of Fulton County Republican Women) emerges from the shadows to (try to) influence the hiring and work of the election consultant. A key task of this Gang of Four seems to have been to influence the hiring of an election consultant that they (thought they) could secretly control. They did succeed in hiring their favored consultant; however, the consultant refused to follow their partisan script. Today’s post (Part 2 of Election Interference) will discuss the hiring and subsequent engagement of that consultant, Vernetta Nuriddin.
As you read this ask post, ask yourself:
Is the level involvement by Council Members Mohrig and Moore in the hiring of an election consultant appropriate? Is it legal/ethical? At what point does this sort of interference become election tampering? Who was feeding partisan activist Karen Dubin information about the contract negotiations with the consultant? Did Rick Mohrig cross a line and coach the consultant in her contract negotiations with the City? Was Mohrig essentially negotiating against the City? And the big question: Should Rick Mohrig play any role (beyond referring a candidate) in hiring a consultant for an election in which he might be running? Even the consultant seems to have a problem with Mohrig’s involvement in her hiring, warning City Manager Krokoff (during contract negotiations): “I told him (Rick Mohrig) that incumbents cannot participate in the administration of their own elections. No way around that fact. I promised I would call so I did.”
Has the City erred in allowing council to dictate specifics of the election? Ms. Nuriddan seems to think so. She seems to believe once the City appointed an Election Supervisor and passed a certain date (February 1, 2023) that council interference is prohibited/restricted. She seems to imply that Krokoff should no longer be bringing decisions to council for their approval and that such meddling by council is perhaps illegal.
Why are political activists (without any official role) trying to influence the consultant outside of the public process? Why are these activists demanding that their input be kept secret from staff and the public? Are these activists actually being assigned tasks by the City? Are there established agreements to provide such services? Or is this another example of an “informal” (i.e., not guided by any regulation) arrangement like the EFC itself (in its early days)?
Do you get a sense that both Ms. Nuriddan and the City were forced into a contract by Mr. Mohrig and Moore? Why? Did the Gang of Four believe they could continue to exercise control from the shadows? Clearly, this issue comes to the fore when Krokoff directs Nurridan to cease all communications with council and the community. Ms. Nurridan had long been warning about running a loose and leaky process, even before she was hired. She also expressed concern about undue influence of council and individual council members in election design.
Given that the City is just now forming committees to write election rules, is it reasonable to believe the City can be ready to administer fall elections? Will rule-writing extend beyond qualifying in late August? Is it fair to not have a full set of complete rules before qualifying?
Given all that has transpired since the murky inception of the EFC, could any reasonable citizen—regardless of their party/partisan affiliations—have any trust and confidence in the integrity of Milton’s elections? Should Milton go on bended knee to Fulton County and request Fulton County run Milton’s municipal elections is 2023? Is it too late to step back from the brink (as Milton’s sister cities wisely opted to do)?
As you can see, there is a lot of mischief, dysfunction, and dishonesty to cover in this blog post. So let’s get on with the story. Fast-forward to the January 2023.
At this time, Vernetta Nuriddin comes to the attention of Council Members Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore (Team M&M). (It should be noted that many of Mohrig’s emails came from his personal email address, even though he was conducting city business. This has been a long-running problem with Mohrig and demonstrates his propensity for non-transparency. He was called out for the same issue in 2015.)
January 6-9, 2023. Ms. Nuriddin was introduced to Moore and Mohrig by Karen Dubin, a Republican activist who plays a prominent role later in this story.
Let me stop here to provide some impressions of Ms. Nuriddan. Ms. Nuriddan is a kind of a folk hero in Republican circles. This is because she is a Democrat who crossed party lines and provided the deciding vote that removed Richard Barron, Fulton County’s election chief. And for this, I applaud Ms. Nuriddan for her intelligence and courage. Furthermore, it is important to note that Ms. Nuriddan seemed at times reluctant to take on the Milton election consulting work. This may be because Ms. Nuriddan had not previously consulted and she did not have actual experience running an election and she has a day job as an Education Specialist in Atlanta’s charter schools. However, my sense is that Ms. Nuriddan’s reticence had at least partly to do with poor practices being applied by the City in its election work . . . undue influence, lack of rigor, secretiveness, etc.I must admit that while I found (like staff) Ms. Nuriddan’s qualifications to be thin, I admire Nuriddan’s consistent integrity and her willingness to call out and warn against less-than-ethical actions she was witnessing in Milton. You further get a sense that Rick Mohrig used a carrot-and-stick approach with Ms. Nurridan. The “stick” was Mohrig heavily pressuring both City Manager Krokoff and Nuriddan into a kind of political forced marriage. The carrot was Ms. Nuriddan’s compensation increased from $17K to $25K. (If Mr. Mohrig was helping Ms. Nuriddan negotiate with the City on price or scope, that would seem a serious ethics violation.)
January 15 – 25, 2023. In the wake of Dubin’s introduction, Mr. Mohrig and Ms. Nuriddin communicate and eventually meet. Ms. Nuriddin provides Mohrig with a resume; excerpts are provided below.
February 9, 2023 – It is important to understand that during the first 3 months of 2023, Roswell, Alpharetta, and Sandy Springs were all considering running their own municipal elections. These cities and Milton were considering pooling efforts and resources, including naming a regional election superintendent. (Johns Creek determined running their municipal election would cost more than under FuCo . . . the exact opposite conclusion from Milton.) Officials in these other cities stated that given the complexity of the task and the risk involved, they did not feel they had the time and resources to ready themselves for the 2023 election. To nudge them in the right direction, Fulton adjusted costs downward for FuCo to run municipal elections. Also, FuCo is implementing reforms (some state-mandated) that should reduce their on-going costs while improving performance. Milton’s sister cities all stepped back from brink while Milton recklessly leaped into the election chasm. Privately, a few officials in Milton’s sister cities told me that the benefits to be gained were not worth the investment, ongoing costs, and the risks. They also believe that the initial furor around election integrity (in the wake of the 2020 presidential election) has died down to the point that the political pressures are minimal and the other North Fulton cities will likely stick with FuCo. They believe local running of municipal elections is no longer a worthwhile cause. They believe Milton was reckless to proceed alone. I agree. Unfortunately, my sense is that the Gang of Four still believes the Milton election project is their ticket to fame and fortune within the Republican party. I believe it is more likely they will become political pariahs in the Republican Party once the revelations in this blog gain a wider audience.
February 13-14, 2023: Nuriddan finally made contact with Assistant City Manager Inglis and City Clerk Lowit. In communications with Inglis, Nuriddan mentions Milton as the model for North Fulton in 2025. Inglis and Lowit both interview Nuriddan and decide she is not suitable for the consulting project.
February 28, 2023. In late February, the City determines the scope of election consulting work. The cost will nearly double from a budgeted $13,000 to $25,000. (Both numbers are ridiculously low resulting in elimination of the most capable firms and consultants.)
March 8, 2023: Mohrig intervenes to countermand the decision by Inglis and Lowit. Mohrig makes a personal request that City Manager Krokoff interview Nuriddan. This is the beginning of a campaign by Mohrig (and Moore) to pressure both Krokoff and Nuriddan to consumate a consulting contract. At this point, with its sister cities bailing out, there is no time to waste. Milton is flying solo and has a short runway. However, a lot of time is wasted (nearly 3 months before a consultant is hired) partly because of Mohrig and Moore’s micro-mangement of the consultant hiring.
March 13, 2023: Nuriddin and Mohrig exchange a shocking set of texts. There is a lot here that is worth considering. First, Nuriddan opines that she believes Krokoff is planning “on the county conducting Milton’s elections” and states “It’s the only logical decision.” Nuriddin is asserting this because Krokoff is the Superintendent and as such, she believes it is his (and only his) decision to make. Second and more importantly, it is revealing that the consultant (Ms Nuriddan) that Mohrig wants to hire and succeeds in getting hired believes Milton should NOT run its elections. Mohrig argues that Krokoff cannot ignore council’s direction. However, Nurridan does not back down and asserts that “council cannot direct anything regarding its own election. It may vote to approve the city mgr’s recommendation for election supt. but that’s it.”This is a position that Nuriddan consistently states and defends throughout her communications in this blog. Essentially, Nuriddan is warning Mohrig that he and council need to be careful about meddling in elections and dictating to the Elections Superintendent, which is Krokoff. I assume Nuriddan knows what she is talking about; otherwise the City should not have hired her. This issue of the supremacy of the Elections Superintendent is a critical one. Mohrig finally accedes her point, but states he still wants her to help the city with implementation. He just doesn’t get it.
March 28, 2023. The City provides a short summary of the consultant qualifications it is seeking. A key selection criterion is significant experience with conducting municipal elections. Nuriddan does not seem to have this experience.
March 29, 2023. It is at this point that Lisa Cauley makes an appearance. In an extended text, Cauley complains to Council Member Andrea Verhoff. Cauley is right, except the problem is that hiring the consultant is complicated. The City has set a budget amount that is far too low to interest most qualified consultants. And in fact, 3 consultants/consulting firms turned down the city. And unfortunately, Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore are gumming up the works with their micro-management of the consultant hiring.
April 3, 2023. It is at this point that Mohrig turns up the heat on Krokoff and gets more aggressive in pushing Ms. Nuriddan.
April 13, 2023. However, the City Manager is simultaneously dealing with more important critical path issues.Krokoff wants to make some sensible changes (e.g., using scanners; adding a 3rd polling location) but gets denied by council.The stance of Milton’s tin-foil-hat hyper-partisans (that regularly come to council and rant) is that the recommendations of the EFC must be followed verbatim. (However, as later blog posts demonstrate, these partisans are hypocritical . . . . they are fine with changes that reduce voting access for certain voters.) They do not understand the wisdom of allowing the Elections Superintendent to assess risk-return and make reasonable adjustments to the EFC design. Krokoff subtly advises council that risks (for example, voter disenfranchisement?) exist that he is reluctant to discuss in a public forum that require reasonable adjustments. Council rejects his recommendations. It is back to the drawing board; more time is lost. It is at this time that Krokoff also warns council that significant variances exist relative to the original business case; the predicted savings are shrinking . . . and it is likely they will continue to shrink . . . no business case survives contact with reality. (Note: Later blog posts document steady and substantial reduction in alleged cost savings.)
April 14, 2023. Mohrig now appeals to Nuriddan, encouraging her to apply. Nuriddan throws out a price of $17K. It is concerning that matters have proceeded to a point where price is being negotiated and City staff have not been looped in. More interesting is that Nuriddan again warns Mohrig about his actions now that the election cycle has started (February 1). Mohrig never understands (Ms. Nuriddan’s position) that, as an elected official (especially one up for re-election in the Fall), he should not really be involved at all in the election design and planning, including hiring of consultants. At this point, Nuriddan believes the Elections Superintendent (and his staff) should be the sole decision-maker; council must butt out. Mohrig’s (and Moore’s) cluelessness in these matters is stunning.
April 14, 2023: Mohrig pesters Krokoff again. Mohrig seems bound and determined for Milton to hire Ms. Nuriddan. However, Krokoff has other thoughts. Krokoff’s two primary election staff have rejected Ms. Nuriddan and he has also reviewed her qualifications and found them wanting. He needs a better solution.
April 21, 2023: Krokoff offers a reasonable alternative solution (early hiring of poll managers and using them to write the rules), but he is immediately shot down by Moore and Mohrig. It is important to note that 5 other council members either supported the alternative or deferred to Krokoff to do as he thought best. However, Mohrig and Moore both object strenuously and ultimately get their way.
Following is Moore’s pushback on using the poll managers as consultants. And note that Moore mentions Ms. Nuriddan’s “price tag is around $30K.” This is considerably more than the $17K price floated by Nuriddan just one week earlier in texts with Mohrig. How does Moore know this? Why are council members broaching such matters with a potential consultant? Is this appropriate? Ethical? Is this sort of interference undermining the city’s negotiating position? Is it the case that council members are actually working with/for the consultant and negotiating against the city?
Krokoff pushes back hard stating that Ms. Nuriddan did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position.
Not to be deterred, Moore rebuts Krokoff. Moore states emphatically “If we have NO other reasonable choices, Vernetta is a ‘reasonable’ choice . . . at the right price.” Game, Set, Match for Moore. Nuriddan is forced on Krokoff. It is incredible to me that Moore and Mohrig feel they should manage Krokoff this closely. I have worked with dozens of boards and never witnessed a board forcing a consultant on their organization’s leader. Never.
April 24, 2023. Mohrig—always a day late and a dollar short—weighs in 3 days late and also pushes hard for Nuriddan.
April 23-24, 2023: During this time, Mohrig rants in text messages to Council Member Jacobus and even suggests a council member should participate in interviewing Nuriddan.
April 27, 2023: Finally, Krokoff and Nuriddan made contact. Clearly, Nuriddan is concerned about Mohrig’s intervention in her potential hiring stating: “I told him (Mohrig) that incumbents cannot participate in the administration of their own elections. No way around that. I promised I would call so I did.” Nuriddan is nothing if not consistent in her concerns about election tampering.
May 2, 2023. Krokoff finally relents and Nurridin is engaged in contract negotiations. Note that the price has increased from $17K to $20K after originally being budgeted at $13,000.
May 9, 2023: Lisa Cauley again pops us in texts from Mohrig to Krokoff. It seems Mohrig has tasked Cauley to work with State Assembly Representative Jan Jones, but Jones smartly waves off Cauley and demands an elected official request her assistance. This is first email indicating that Cauley is being assigned official tasks by the City government, but in what (if any) official capacity is unclear. This use of such off-the-books supernumeries, particularly political partisans, (especially for elections design/planning) should be troubling to citizens.
May 12, 2023. Karen Dubin, who introduced Mohrig to Nuriddan, now re-enters the picture when contract negotiations are underway with Nuriddan, who complains about Ms. Dubin’s “inappropriate” late-night text message “demanding that I sign the 26 pg contract.” Nuriddan is rightfully annoyed and rightfully upset that someone (Mohrig?) is sharing information with Dubin . . . a violation of confidentiality and likely of Milton’s purchasing rules and possibly undermining Milton’s negotiating position. Nuriddin again expresses concern about sloppy and unethical processes at Milton stating “I warned against talking about elections outside public forums.” She correctly wants to maintain discipline around citizen participation; integrity demands participation occur within the boundaries of the public process. Clearly Nuriddan is wary of the potential influence of partisans (and council members) outside of the established process. Following is Nurridan’s dialogue with Krokoff, with Dubin’s text (the black text box) attached:
May 17, 2023: Below is an email from Krokoff to council notifying council of a price increase from $20K to $25K(up from the original $17K and budgeted $13K).There must be a back story here. Did meddling by Dubin and Mohrig undermine the city’s negotiating position? Or was Nuriddan getting cold feet and she was advised to ask for more money (by Dubin or Mohrig or someone else?) Or did Ms. Nuriddan realize that the clock was ticking and Milton had no other inexpensive option, so she leveraged her improved negotiating position? Or did she realize that the project’s return to her did not match the risk she was perceiving (e.g., interference from partisans and council members)? This situation certainly warrants some investigation. It sure seems like negotiations around this contract were sloppy and included information being passed to Ms. Dubin.
Moore and Mohrig readily approved of the price increase. This is ironic considering they voted down adding a 3rd polling location because of costs (<$5000 per year) and have been similarly penurious when it comes to other elements critical to election service levels. Following is Moore’s response:
May 18, 2023. Mohrig also approved the price increase, which was nearly 100% over the the City’s budgeted amount:
June 6, 2023: Finally, Ms. Nuriddan was engaged. Unfortunately, many months were wasted at least partly because of Moore and Mohrig’s micro-management of hiring.
June 8, 2023: Almost immediately, issues seem to have emerged with Nuriddin’s communications with council and the community. Nurridin was directed by Krokoff not to discuss any “business related to your contract” with council members or citizens. Perhaps based on Nurridin’s many cautions about strict process discipline (over many months), Krokoff finally “got religion” around election integrity.
June 21, 2023: More direction was provided to Nuriddan from Krokoff about communications with the Secretary of State’s (SOS) office. It would seem Krokoff is concerned (maybe nervous?) about SOS scrutiny, although it would seem SOS involvement might be prudent to keeping Milton’s elections out of the ditch. Unfortunately, as a long-time watcher of Krokoff, I believe he has serious blind spots concerning government transparency . . . he’s mostly against it, despite protestations to the contrary.
June 21, 2023: In the below email, Nuriddan admits to some major gaps in her election knowledge about paper ballots. More importantly, Nuriddan reveals that her mission in Milton stems from direction she seems to have received from some Fulton County Republican operatives.The Milton elections project is part of a larger partisan initiative to locally run all municipal elections in North Fulton. (Nuriddan alludes to the same in an earlier text message.) This is troubling. Milton should be running its elections because it is the right thing to do, not as part of some broader partisan strategy. I have always felt Milton’s elections project was viewed by its strongest advocates as their ticket to fame and fortune in the Republican party and had little to do with high ideas of improving and strengthening democratic institutions in Milton.
June 27, 2023: Lisa Cauley once again pops up, with Ms Nuriddan seeking to appease Ms. Cauley by allowing her to attend some sort of elections meeting. The perceived need to offer mollifying gestures to Ms. Cauley is troubling.
June 29, 2023: However, 2 days later, Ms. Nuriddan is back to her typical integrity-focused mindset. Below are two texts from Nurridan to Krokoff. These are perhaps the most disturbing of the communications (among the many disturbing communications) in this blog post. Ms. Nuriddan indicates that Dubin and Cauley are seeking to influence her work outside of the normal public participation process and further that Ms. Nuriddan is to keep their influence a secret. Ms. Nuriddan is having none of it. As she has consistently done over many months, Nuriddin expresses her discomfort with issues of integrity and undue influence (from partisans and council members). Also troubling in these texts is the assertion that Krokoff has been assigning action items to Cauley. Furthermore, it is unclear what Mr. Krokoff thinks is so funny (with his ha ha’s) about a very serious matter.
June 30, 2023: It is fitting perhaps that the very last text from my ORRs is about the Milton Coalition. I must confess that I was pleased when I saw this text from Ms. Nuriddin about the Milton Coalition . . . proof that I am achieving my awareness mission. I find irony in Ms. Nuriddan’s failure to recognize that I am exposing the very issues (e.g., poor process discipline, lack of integrity) that she has been warning about over her several months of communicating and working with Milton.
If you have made it to the very end of this blog post, I commend you. I have spent many hours researching and creating this post. I love Milton and feel it is my obligation to expose the clear mischief that has been perpetrated in Milton through the elections design, planning, and implementation process. My hope is that Miltonites will take notice and act now that the ugly truth has been revealed.
Advocating for free, fair, and honest elections,
Tim
Note: I have long prided myself on keeping the Milton Coalition Blog strictly non-partisan. In local politics and governance, I have always prioritized principles over party, politics, and partisanship. This is partly because I believe partisanship does not translate well to the local level. And in any case, elections in Milton are supposed to be non-partisan. I will continue to adhere to non-partisanship with my blog posts. However, because of the partisan sensitivities around elections, I feel compelled to explain my political leanings to demonstrate my independence and objectivity. I am an independent, Libertarian-leaning, Constitution-loving, patriotic, Ronald Reagan Conservative and proud of it. (I served as a US Navy Nuclear Submarine Officer for nearly 8 years earning both the Navy Achievement and Commendation medals.) However, right is right. Basic rights and fairness are at stake. The election issues I am exposing transcend party and politics. I refuse to stand by and let certain council members and political partisans destroy the fairness and integrity of Milton’s elections.
(Updated August 23, 2023 to reflect council’s actions in late 2021 to establish an “informal” elections feasibility committee. However, no vote was taken by council.)
Readers:
Through 7 Open Records Requests (covering the period January 1 to July 2, 2023) I have been able to piece together an astonishing story of Milton’s hiring and engagement of an elections consultant. And make no mistake about it . . . the basic integrity and fundamental fairness of elections in Milton are under serious threat.
Because I am having to sift through hundreds of pages of emails and texts, my exposure of myriad irregularities in Milton’s election design process is taking more time and effort than I expected. So I am breaking up my Election Interference blog post into 2 parts.Part 1 (this post) provides context needed to understand all the mischief entailed in hiring and engagement of Milton’s election consultant explained in Part 2.
This blog post is focused on the work of the Election Feasibility Committee (EFC). I think you will be shocked by many aspects of the EFC: its lack of expertise; its extreme partisanship; its secretiveness; etc. You will have to wait until tomorrow for Part 2, which I believe should result in firings, resignations, and bans on certain activists participating in city government (except as private citizens through the public process).
So here goes . . .
Considering that election integrity was the initial impetus for Milton to investigate running its own municipal elections, it is ironic that Milton’s process for designing and implementing its municipal elections has been permeated by a complete lack of integrity . . . dishonesty, secrecy, exercise of undue influence by partisan interests, etc. It is a lack of integrity that persists to this very day and should cause reasonable citizens to questions the basic fairness and integrity of Milton’s Fall 2023 municipal elections.
City of Milton Election Feasibility Committee (EFC). In the uproar after the 2020 presidential elections, which included allegations of corruption and incompetence in Fulton County, some citizens and politicians in North Fulton began to advocate for more local control of elections. It turns out that state law limits local control, and cities only have the option of running their municipal elections; right now, counties will continue to run county, state, and federal elections and ballot initiatives. In Milton, municipal elections occur in odd-numbered years. In 2021, the five sister cities of North Fulton County all began to investigate options to run their municipal elections. I am told the charge was led by Rick Mohrig in Milton. I expressed at the time that Milton running its own elections was a really bad idea. Weren’t there other more important priorities? In March 2021, the City approved a 5-year strategic plan. Nowhere in Milton’s strategic plan are elections mentioned . . . not a word. Unfortunately, elections were unwisely pushed to the top of Milton’s priorities. In late 2021, a committee was formed composed of 6 individuals: Council Member Rick Mohrig, Council Member Paul Moore, Lisa Cauley (President of Fulton Republican Women and holder of other Republican leadership positions), Mark Amick (also a Republican activist and one of Trump’s alternate/fake electors, who claims to have witnessed many 1000s of votes wrongly assigned to Biden during a recount while a poll watcher); Assistant City Manager Stacey Inglis; and City Clerk Tammy Lowit.
There were so many problems with this committee that it is hard to know where to start. First, it is unclear when, why, and how the committee was comprised. For example, why were incumbent city council members assigned—most especially city council members who would be running for re-election in 2023 and would be designing the very elections in which they would run? Why were two Republican activists assigned? Municipal elections are non-partisan. Nobody even knows (or will admit to) how Mark Amick was appointed to the committee. (Rick Mohrig appointed Lisa Cauley, so it stands to reason that Paul Moore probably appointed Mark Amick, but he’s not admitted it.) Did anyone at City Hall know that Amick was a fake elector? Did anyone check backgrounds? What election expertise/experience did these people bring? To my knowledge, only Mark Amick brought any elections experience . . . and just as a poll-watcher. Given the partisan composition of the committee and its lack of expertise, why would anyone trust the committee’s recommendations?
Citizens, it gets worse. The EFC followed none of the rules for committee establishment and operations. For many months, according to the Milton Herald, the EFC met in secret—i.e., there were no legal notices and no opportunity for public observance/participation. Even the Georgia Secretary of State’s office stated it was troubled by the EFC’s lack of transparency. Through Open Records Requests, the Milton Herald determined that the EFC met secretly at least half a dozen times. Worse, no records of these proceedings were maintained. The City waved off criticism by disingenuously asserting that the committee was “informal.” These are weasel words meant to deceive citizens. There is not a word or regulation in Milton’s Municipal Code that addresses “informal” committees and how they might function. It is a totally made-up notion meant to snow citizens.
At one council meeting where the EFC was discussed, then Council Member (now Mayor) Jamison probed and discovered the EFC was not following Georgia’s Open Meetings Laws. So what happened? Did City Council take the right and logical action: apologize, disband the EFC, and push the reset button? Answer: NO. No one on council even expressed any concern about the irregularities; rather Council ratified the existing committee and sent them on their merry way. No one seemed to have a problem with Council Members designing their own elections. No one had any issues with the EFC’s partisan make-up. No one cared about the EFC’s previous lack of transparency. If any governmental function requires an extraordinarily high level of integrity, transparency, fairness, and rigor . . . it is the design of elections. And on all counts, the City of Milton failed miserably. Milton’s Feasibility Committee was born in secrecy, dishonesty, incompetence and partisanship . . . themes that have persisted throughout the process to the present day . . . with predictable results.
The Milton Herald did a tremendous job identifying (through Open Records Requests) the issues associated with the clandestine Election Feasibility Committee. Following is a link to a great investigative piece by reporter Amber Perry:
Election Feasibility Committee (EFC) Report-Out to Council. I attended the presentation of the Election Feasibility Committee’s recommendations. Mark Amick presented the operational recommendations and Lisa Cauley presented the business case. And I have to say, even by government standards, it was a poor work product. I suppose it is easy to cut costs when you slash service levels and you ignore and underestimate costs. For example, the number of polling locations was reduced from 8 to 2. Eventually (after a polling place switch-up) District 3 was denied a polling place . . . the location where it makes most sense to locate a polling place due to traffic patterns in Milton. (Note: The EFC actually recommended a polling location in District 3 at the Milton Public Safety Center, but council added a District 2 location and rejected the District 3 location.) The City has actually been doing a decent job of tracking the variances to this original business case. Not surprisingly, the costs are creeping up. For example, an elections consultant was originally budgeted at $13,000; the City is actually paying $25,000. The City also did not budget for opportunity costs for use of (some) staff and facilities . . . apparently, they’re free in the world of government accounting. I could go on and on, but won’t belabor my point that the EFC’s recommendations and business case were underwhelming. I say this as a consultant who has worked with 60+ organizations and has developed many dozens of business cases over my career . . . and even written articles on how to develop business cases.
Tomorrow, I will publish Part 2 of the Election Interference in Milton. Stay tuned.
Advocating For Free, Fair, and Honest Elections . . .
Tim
Note: I have prided myself on keeping the Milton Coaltion Blog strictly non-partisan. In local politics and governance, I have always prioritized principles over party, politics, and partisanship. This is partly because I believe partisanship does not translate well to the local level. And in any case, elections in Milton are supposed to be non-partisan. I will continue to adhere to non-partisanship with my blog posts. However, because of the partisan sensitivities around elections, I feel compelled to explain my political leanings to demonstrate my independence and objectivity. I am an independent, Libertarian-leaning, Constitution-loving, patriotic, Ronald Reagan Conservative and proud of it. However, right is right. Basic rights and fairness are at stake. The election issues I am exposing transcend party and politics. I refuse to stand by and let certain council members and political partisans destroy the fairness and integrity of Milton’s elections.
This is probably my shortest-ever blog post. Later today, I will publish a blog post that is going to rock the City of Milton to its core. The blog post’s revelations will be a political bombshell that will send shockwaves throughout the community! The post will be about Milton’s long-running and on-going process for designing and running its own municipal elections. If Milton’s behind-the-scenes election mischiefs and mistakes don’t shock you, nothing will.
Once again, Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore (Team M&M) are at the center of it all. These two council members remind me of Slim Pickens riding the thermonuclear bomb to the target in the Dr. Strangelove movie . . . in this case, the target being good governance in Milton. Through 7 Open Records Requests (3 submitted by the Milton Herald and 4 follow-up requests that I submitted), I have been able to piece together an astonishing narrative about Milton’s hiring and engagement of its elections consultant. After reading about the skullduggery involved, I don’t know how any reasonable citizen could have any confidence in Milton running free, fair, and honest municipal elections.
Buckle up and stay tuned! Milton is in for some rough turbulence . . .
Advocating For Free, Fair, and Honest Municipal Elections in Milton,
Tim
Note: The Moore and Mohrig camp are engaged in what might best be described as a False Flag operation meant to distract citizens from the elections story. Team M&M’s surrogates are ranting and raving about a casual political discussion that occurred at the conclusion of a DRB meeting when almost nobody was watching. It is a case of No Harm, No Foul. Their appeal to ethics is laughable and merely highlights their desperation.
Phil Cranmer has announced that he will challenge Council Member Rick Mohrig in the 2023 District 3 race for City Council. My initial impression is that Cranmer is a fine, upstanding, decent, and accomplished individual. Following are links to Mr. Cranmer’s campaign website, campaign Facebook page, and LinkedIn profile:
I am also providing a link to Council Member Mohrig’s LinkedIn page. I was unable to find an active political website or political FB page for Mr. Mohrig but will post them if/when they become available. Mohrig recently posted a Campaign Contribution Disclosure Report (CCDR) that indicates (as of the end of June) his campaign has recently neither received nor expended monies and furthermore, that he currently has $0 in his campaign fund. If Mohrig does run for re-election, it will herald the first competitive election in District 3 since 2011.
A few weeks ago, Doug Hene announced his run for the District 2 council seat. Hene and Cranmer’s candidacies are positive for Milton. Competitive elections will force much needed debate about the important issues facing Milton.
On paper, both Hene and Cranmer are formidable candidates. Milton’s 2023 elections may herald the final transition of city government from Milton 1.0 to Milton 2.0. Out with the old, in with the new. And make no mistake about it, Milton desperately needs a clean break with its dark political past. Milton would benefit from new representatives with fresh ideas.
Let me be direct. Council Members Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig represent the last rotting vestiges of the old regime . . . political dinosaurs limping along in Milton’s political landscape wreaking havoc as they lumber along. Both ran in Milton’s first council races in 2006. Mohrig ran unopposed and slid onto Milton’s inaugural council while Moore lost in a 5-person race (failing to make it to the run-off). In his only competitive race in his political career, Mohrig lost decisively to Alan Tart in 2007. However, Mohrig was able to slip back onto council through an appointment in 2013 to complete the term of Lance Large, who moved out of Milton. Thereafter, Mohrig ran unopposed in 2013, 2015 and 2019 and has now served 10 consecutive years on council. It’s enough.
Moving onto Paul Moore. Capitalizing on the momentum from Laura Bentley’s historic landslide victory in 2017, Paul Moore won election to council in 2019. However, Moore served on the Planning Commission since the city’s founding in 2006 and served as an operative in various campaigns since that time and his election in 2019.
I continue to believe that neither Moore nor Mohrig will seek re-election now that they have competitors. Due largely to the misbehavior of Moore and Mohrig over the past 15+ months, there is a strong anti-incumbent sentiment flowing through the electorate in Milton. Past elections demonstrate that Miltonites are not shy about showing rascals the door. The last straw for many voters (and for Mr. Cranmer, I am told) was the denial of a polling location for District 3.This colossal political blunder put a huge political target on Moore and Mohrig’s backs. Blame hubris or stupidity . . . probably some of both, in my opinion. I remind readers that Moore and Mohrig 1) led the Election “Feasibility” Committee and 2) supported eliminating a District 3 polling location in favor of a District 2 polling location and then voted against adding back a 3rd voting location (for District 3), along with Council Members Jan Jacobus and Andrea Verhoff. The hyper-partisan feasibility committee originally met in secret, keeping little/no records of these meetings. I have a real problem with current politicians designing elections (behind closed doors and leaving no records) in which they will run . . . who thought this was a good idea? (Note: Later election feasibility committee meetings were advertised and open to the public, and records were maintained.)
Let me again be direct. Moore and Mohrig (Team M&M) cannot run on their records. During the previous 15 months, Team M&M has wreaked havoc in Milton . . . intruding into minor HOA issues, engaging in serious unethical behavior, and designing unfair, nonsensical municipal elections. And my understanding is that there is more to come regarding Milton’s election design/implementation. Despite wrapping up their election feasibility work months ago, Moore and Mohrig apparently have continued to intrude (behind the scenes) in Milton’s election design/implementation–specifically the hiring of an elections consultant. Responses to Open Records Requests (ORRs) submitted by Appen Media show a disturbing pattern of intrusion, particularly by Mr. Mohrig. Additional ORRs are being processed that should shed more light on Milton’s hiring of its elections consultant.
So what does this mean for the 2023 election? It means Team M&M must distract voters from their sorry records, particularly their ethical misbehavior. They must find some incident—however insignificant—and blow it out to proportion so they can say “see, my opponent is just as unethical as I am.” It is the classic Make-A-Mountain-Out-of-a-Molehill strategy. Such an effort is currently underway regarding Tuesday’s DRB meeting. Former Council Member Laura Bentley appears to be one of M&M’s surrogates leading the charge on this DRB issue. I will write more about this DRB issue once I’ve gathered the facts. So far, my impression is that the DRB incident is much ado about nothing . . . almost entirely political posturing. It is like equating jaywalking to grand larceny. It is a strategy that assumes voters are morons and can be easily duped. Perhaps other places, this might work . . . but not in Milton. And through this blog, I will strive to assist citizens in applying the principle of proportionality to ethics in Milton.
Lastly, it is my hope that the entrance of two strong insurgent candidates in Districts 2 and 3 might encourage a similarly strong insurgent candidate to run in District 1 and challenge Council Member Carol Cookerly. A full slate of formidable insurgent candidates would be helpful to all candidates on the slate.
Following is a link to the City of Milton website where you can find candidates’ financial disclosure statements. These are interesting to see who is contributing, how campaign money is being spent, etc.
Today, in a terse one-sentence ruling, the Georgia Court of Appeals summarily dismissed Paul Moore’s appeal of his conviction on 3 serious ethics charges. (I am attaching the appellate ruling.) For this appeal, Mr. Moore hired additional high-powered attorneys that specialize in appellate court appeals . . . but to no avail.
In its ruling, the appellate court upheld the Fulton Superior Court’s earlier ruling. Those of us following the Paul Moore Ethics Scandal were not surprised in the least by the appellate court decision. Council Member Moore has now been brutally smacked down in 3 judicial venues. Justice has prevailed. The unanimous decision of Milton’s 3-attorney ethics panel stands.
I must admit that (even though we were once friends and allies) I feel little sorrow for Mr. Moore. . . for two reasons.
First, Moore’s conviction was an entirely self-inflicted wound. I truly believe that Moore had an at least an inkling that his actions were unethical but calculated that no one would have the moxie and money to challenge him . . . he was wrong. Early on, Moore could have manned up and the damage to him and the city might have been minimized. He chose otherwise and is now paying the price, as is the City. Moore’s incomprehensible perpetuation of this sad saga over 14+ months have only made matters worse for him and more importantly for the City. That gets me to my second point . . .
Second and much more importantly, Mr. Moore has visited tremendous damage upon the City through his selfish and quixotic quest for his distorted notion of justice in the face of hard facts. Non-stop bad publicity has hurt the city’s image. This scandal has also diverted scarce monetary resources (e.g., to pay legal expenses) and human resources (e.g., staff time). Worst of all, this ethics scandal, repeated intrusions into minor White Columns HOA issues, and most recently flaws in municipal election design/implementation have diverted City attention from strategic issues to minutiae, petty HOA quarrels, and hyper-partisan politics (including unreasonably unequal access to polling locations for District 3 voters).
It is unclear (to me) whether Paul Moore has any more avenues of appeal. Regardless, it seems Moore will likely become the first Council Member to be convicted of ethics violations in the Milton’s 17-year history. This is an ignominious honor for Mr. Moore and I think a result of Mr. Moore’s hubris in the face of incontrovertible evidence of his guilt. Given that Mr. Moore seems to have no realistic chance of overturning the latest ruling, now would be a good time for Mr. Moore to engage in some serious soul-searching . . . which I suspect is a foreign notion to him. Mr. Moore needs to place the priorities of the City ahead of his narrow personal interests. Quite simply, Mr. Moore should resign from City Council. Resignation is the only decent, honorable and respectable course of action and offers Mr. Moore an opportunity to preserve at least a shred of dignity in the face of his serious ethical breaches. I think a sincere resignation would allow Mr. Moore to exit government and politics on a positive—albeit muted—note.
While I believe Mr. Moore should resign, I strongly believe Moore will not resign but rather will resort to increasingly desperate campaign tactics. Politically, Moore resembles a wounded and cornered animal.Accordingly, I predicthe (or his proxies) will lash out at his political adversaries. Mr. Moore is up for re-election in the fall of 2023 . . . elections he helped design. (Think about the ethical issues of self-dealing associated with designing elections in which you will run . . . it is not hard to understand why District 3 was denied a polling location.) At least on paper, Mr. Moore’s competitor, Doug Hene, seems quite formidable. I suspect Mr. Moore’s political camp will seek to neutralize the ethics issues by dragging Hene into the mud. And in fact, rumors are flying that the Moore Camp is seeking to score some cheap political points based on a brief, casual (albeit inappropriate) discussion of politics initiated by the DRB Chairman (not Hene) that occurred at the conclusion of Monday night’s Design Review Board (DRB) meeting. (Mr. Hene sits on this board.) Based on the little I have heard so far about, it is a tempest in a teapot . . . a big fat nothing-burger. Stay tuned. The 2023 political season could get ugly.
My advice to Mr. Hene is take a deep breath and stick to the high road . . . for now. It might be best to ignore Mr. Moore and his proxies. As he has repeatedly demonstrated, Moore is his own worst enemy. And his vanishingly small band of political proxies will provide little help . . . they have proven themselves clever by half. Public opinion has turned decidedly against Moore; he will only hurt himself further (if that is possible) if he travels the political low road. Hene should be careful to not allow himself to be baited and pulled down into the mud. Hene should focus right now on defining himself, listening to citizens, and painting a positive vision for Milton.
Advocating For Good Governance,
Tim
Postscript: Please forward blog emails and blog links to other citizens. The upcoming election is critical to the future direction of Milton. It is important for citizens to understand the backstory of Milton politics, which I have been providing since 2015. The MC blog really provides the only in-depth analysis of Milton government and politics currently available to citizens. I strive to be factual and to base my opinions on careful weighing of the facts. The fact that I was once close allies with Paul Moore and Laura Bentley strongly attests to my independence. I broke with Moore and Bentley when I realized that they had abandoned the core principles that so many of us fought for in 2016 and 2017 and that we expressed in our votes for Bentley in 2017, when she won in an historic landslide victory. Neither Moore nor Bentley has even once written to me to dispute any factual assertion in my blog, which I believe is a testament to my dedication to getting at the truth in Milton. Of course, I always welcome the opportunity to correct any error of fact.
Milton Coalition 