(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:

Milton Herald – Questions Swirl Around Elections Feasibility Commitee

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.