(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 misbehavior in 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 combined 2000+ 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 Coalition 