(Above screenshot is from upcoming August 21st City Council agenda. I assume in this post that Council will pass this resolution.)
Today’s blog post is about Milton terminating its contract with its elections consultant, Vernetta Nuriddin, who was forced upon city staff by Council Members Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore. Coincident with Nuriddin’s termination, the City is hiring another consultant, Lavinia White, to accomplish the exact same scope of work. Ominously, this simultaneous termination and hiring is occurring on the first day (August 21st) of candidate qualifying. That’s right . . . another 2 ½ months have been lost and the city is going to write election rules while the 2023 municipal elections campaign is occurring. It’s like changing the wheels of a racecar while its zooming by. It is surreal and the latest episode (of many) in Milton’s election dysfunction. And make no mistake about it . . . most of the blame falls squarely on Moore, Mohrig, and a small band of hyper-partisan extremists that have held sway (often in the back rooms of City Hall) over Milton’s elections policymaking for 2+ years. As I have reported at this blog, the state elections board has been requested (by Milton Families First) to investigate numerous elections irregularities in Milton. I suspect the state elections board will NOT be ok with Milton writing elections rules after candidate qualifying and during an ongoing campaign.
First, some context . . .
For the past month, the Milton Coalition Blog has been focused on Milton’s elections initiative. Of course, elections are fundamental to the proper functioning of our democracy. Obviously, municipal elections design and planning require especially high standards of honesty, rigor, non-partisanship, and transparency. Voters across the political spectrum must have full faith and confidence in Milton’s conduct of its municipal elections. Two sacrosanct election principles are election integrity and equal voter access. Unfortunately, Milton has failed miserably in upholding both of these principles, with the ill effects reverberating to the present day . . . as I will explain.
Since July 16th I have documented myriad instances of incompetence, dishonesty, partisanship, and non-transparency in Milton’s elections design and planning. For 2+ years, Moore, Mohrig and a lunatic fringe have been steering—and often interfering with–Milton’s non-partisan (emphasis intentional) municipal elections. Their interference represents an existential threat both to elections integrity and to voting rights and has put Milton in a precarious position. With candidate qualification commencing in just 3 days, the city is far from completing its election planning and preparations, including writing its elections rules. (I understand that this puts the city in a difficult legal position—i.e., vulnerable to court challenges. This makes sense . . . it is unfair for candidates not to understand election rules in advance of qualifying.) Election interference by Moore, Mohrig, and their partisan foot soldiers have put the city behind the proverbial eight ball, with much time and money wasted. Following are parts 1 and 2 of my Election Interference series of blog posts that document chapter-and-verse how Milton got to this sorry state of affairs.
Election Interference in Milton (Part 1): The Election Feasibility Committee . . . Lack of Transparency, Expertise, and Non-Partisanship
Election Interference (Part 2): Backroom Tampering in Hiring and Work of Milton’s Election Consultant
Thankfully, the Milton Coalition blog posts catalyzed public protest that resulted (just 8 days after my initial post) in Council reversing its previous egregious decision to deny District 3 voters equal access to the ballot box . . . a vaulted victory for voting rights. However, myriad other problems with Milton’s elections initiative remain and require attention. One serious problem that is reverberating to the present day and is the subject of this blog post concerns election integrity . . . Moore and Mohrig’s interference in the hiring of an elections consultant.
Milton’s now nefarious Elections Feasibility Committee (EFC) concluded its work in December 2022 (although some members and their allies have continued to meddle and micromanage behind the scenes, as I have documented in earlier blog posts). In early 2023, it was widely believed that North Fulton’s cities would band together to run their municipal elections under a regional elections authority. Soberly assessing the complexity, costs, and risks involved in running municipal elections, the other North Fulton cities wisely stepped back from the brink leaving Milton alone to stagger forward into the election chasm. (Note that before she was hired, even Ms. Nuriddan opined that it was illogical for Milton to go it alone and run its 2023 elections!!!!)
As the blog has documented, the EFC ignored or underestimated many costs to run Milton’s elections (costs I estimate are now in total more than triple the EFC’s estimates and equivalent to Fulton County’s costs). One critical cost was the budget for an elections consultant . . . only $13,000. As with many costs, the committee provided no sourcing and/or justification for its cost estimate, which seems to have been pulled from thin air. Keep in mind, Milton has never run an election and internal expertise is almost completely lacking, so $13,000 seems a gross underestimate for obtaining needed assistance, especially considering Milton’s sister cities would no longer be sharing resources and costs. Accordingly, none of Milton’s limited options were affordable. NONE.
Elections Superintendent Steve Krokoff wisely devised a Plan B where polling managers (with much of the experience he needed) would be hired early and would complete Milton’s election design, planning, and preparations. Five of seven council members gave their assent to Plan B. However, Moore and Mohrig strenuously objected. Both pushed a candidate, Ms. Nuriddan, who lacked consulting and elections superintendent experience, and was reluctant to accept the work . . . while also expressing discomfort with a lack of integrity she sensed in Milton’s elections initiative (including her hiring). Moore and Mohrig began quoting prices; it seems they were actually negotiating with Ms. Nuriddan! It should be noted that Ms. Nuriddan had previously been rejected by staff for not meeting minimum qualifications. Yes, minimum qualifications . . . however, Moore and Mohrig were not to be deterred. Moore and Mohrig readily agreed to nearly doubling (by $12,000) the consulting budget (although both balked at adding a third polling location ostensibly because of the additional $4500 cost). Despite his strong objections and the support of most of the council for his Plan B, Krokoff caved to Moore and Mohrig and hired Nuriddan. The squeaky wheels got greased. This episode cost the city an extra $12,000 and more than 1½ months of critical planning time. However, Moore and Mohrig got their consultant . . . someone I believe they thought they and their partisan allies could control. Open Records Request show that almost immediately problems began to arise . . . some related to Ms. Nurridan’s lack of expertise in needed areas and some related to interference from council members and political partisans. (This is backed up by a lot of hearsay emanating from credible sources at city hall, but I don’t traffic in hearsay, so I will leave it at that.)
I don’t know the reasons for Ms. Nuriddan’s termination and the hiring of another consultant, Lavinia White. I will submit Open Records Requests to investigate further. In the meantime, I will leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions about what might have occurred. However, I will offer a few observations. First, the work scope for Ms. Nuriddan and for Ms. White are identical, so I would infer that none of Ms. Nuriddan’s work scope items were (fully) completed. I would further infer that the City now finds itself in a very difficult position . . . writing election rules while campaigns are in progress. Second, in its dismissal letter, the city does not specify whether termination is for convenience or for cause. Based on the tone of the letter, I would assume the City chose termination for convenience, which means the City would likely be on the hook for the full contract value: $25,000. If so, White’s contract for $12,500 would be additive and would mean that election costs have again risen . . . making it nearly certain that when ALL costs are considered, Milton will pay more to run its elections than it would have paid Fulton County. Third, it is ironic to note that in hiring Ms. White (and polling managers early), the City has reverted to a version of Krokoff’s original Plan B. Fourth, this latest fiasco has cost the City another 2½ months on top of 1½ months wasted by Moore and Mohrig’s micromanagement of Ms. Nuriddan’s hiring. In quashing Krokoff’s April 21st Plan B to use polling managers for elections planning and preparation, Moore and Mohrig have cost the City 4 months that it can’t spare. Now the City finds itself with back against the wall, in a potentially perilous legal situation, and lacking voter trust and confidence. Council Member Cookerly’s prediction that burdens and encumbrances would escalate is coming true. It is said that the past is prologue, so it is nearly certain that other serious elections problems will arise. Considering the overwhelming incompetence, dishonesty, and partisanship in Milton’s elections initiative, voter confidence and trust in Milton’s 2023 elections have been irretrievably lost. Voter trust and confidence is a litmus test for elections success . . . and by this standard, Milton’s election initiative has been a complete and utter failure. GAME OVER.
The blame game about Milton’s elections has already begun. And it is true that Elections Superintendent Krokoff, City Attorney Jarrard, and the entirety of council bear some responsibility. However, the lion’s share of responsibility for the brokenness of Milton’s elections initiative falls squarely on Council Members Mohrig and Moore and their lunatic fringe confederates. Mr. Mohrig and Mr. Moore . . . gentlemen, you break it, you own it. Time to man up.
Advocating for Honest, Transparent, Fair, Competent, and Non-partisan 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. In my experience, party politics do not translate to local issues. The divisions over past contentious issues have decidedly not broken along party lines. Accordingly, it pains me to witness partisanship infecting Milton’s non-partisan elections. I urge citizens across the political spectrum to reject partisanship in our local politics.
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 