(In subsequent blog post published on Sept. 12th, City Manager Krokoff provides an insider perspective that confirms the findings and conclusions of my investigation into the EFC. You can click this link to read that story: Elections Interference (Part 5):  City Manager’s Insider Perspective Reveals a More Deeply Flawed, Biased, and Dishonest Process Than Milton Coalition Investigation Uncovered)

Yet another Open Records Request reveals dysfunction and dishonesty that has saturated Milton’s election initiative.  For many months, I heard that good work had been done by the two staff members (the Deputy City Manager Inglis and the City Clerk Lowit) assigned to the Election Feasibility Committee (EFC) but this work had been deep-sixed by the four partisan EFC members.  Finally, I decided to obtain the source documents, so I submitted an ORR seeking emails among the 6 members of the EFC for November – December 2022.

In a nutshell, Deputy City Manager Inglis developed a draft EFC report that was rejected by partisan members of the committee, who then pushed staff aside and developed their own report without staff input or consent . . . producing a biased, incomplete, poorly substantiated report that fit their partisan election narrative . . . and in the process, violated the rules for conduct of city committees.  It gets worse . . . the council approval process was then manipulated 1) to minimize council and citizen scrutiny of the EFC’s report and 2) to rush council approval.  So let’s get to the details . . .

On November 23, 2022, Deputy City Manager Inglis sent a final report draft to the other EFC members.  Ms. Inglis’ draft report seems well-written, fact-based, and objective.  It includes an impressive 20-page spreadsheet that detailed and sourced costs. It also includes a risk assessment. However, Council Member Rick Mohrig and perhaps other EFC members did not approve of Ms. Inglis’ draft report.  At this point, Mohrig cut EFC staff members out of the process; suppressed important committee findings that did not fit his propagandistic elections narrative; and tried to short-circuit the council/citizen review and approval process.  On December 1, 2022 Mohrig wrote the following to City Manager Krokoff.

In the yellow-highlighted section, Mohrig clearly excludes staff committee members from further involvement.  Mohrig states that he, Moore, (Lisa) Cauley, and (Mark) Amick are discussing how to move forward.  The remainder of this email and subsequent emails demonstrate that staff committee members were excluded from further involvement.  This is a serious breach of committee rules, which require public meetings where members can discuss and debate their approach and their findings/recommendations and approve (through a vote) what is presented to City Council and to citizens.  Mohrig abuses his power as a council member and clearly overrides/circumvents committee protocols . . . and such power moves are likely one reason why Milton’s City Charter prohibits council members from appointment to committees.

In the green-highlighted and blue-highlighted sections, Mohrig lobbies for a council review and approval process that minimizes scrutiny of the EFC’s work and that fast-tracks approval.  He argues for passing a resolution vs. an ordinance.  An ordinance requires a first presentation, followed by a vote two weeks later.  This two-step process for ordinances is mandated by law and is intended to prevent a law from being introduced and voted upon in a single meeting.  It is a good governance practice meant to ensure sufficient public and legislative due diligence . . . exactly what Mohrig wants to avoid.  With a resolution, Mohrig seems to think he can, in a single meeting, both present the EFC report and get council approval.  This is dirty power politics at its worst. (For reasons I don’t know, Council deferred its vote on the resolution until December 19^th.)

In the red-highlighted section, Mohrig pushes to suppress Inglis’ EFC report.  It is important to understand that council was meeting on December 5 (just 4 days later) to consider the matter of Milton running its municipal elections.  At this point, the EFC report should have been fully vetted and ready for distribution to council and citizens.  It was not ready. However, to keep to schedule, Mohrig circumvents good process, excludes staff, and recklessly plunges ahead.  Clearly, he disagrees with some of the findings and recommendations. However, rather than reconvene the committee to achieve consensus, Mohrig and his confederates reject Inglis’ report, disrespectfully exclude further staff involvement, and manufacture a strongly biased report that doesn’t reflect public and staff input . . . and that excludes/underestimates costs and omits all discussion of risks.

The 4 partisan committee members—Mohrig, Moore, Cauley, and Amick–now assume full control over the final EFC report.  These four committee members use personal email addresses . . .  even though 3 of the 4 have city emails.  This is not allowed but they do it anyway . . . and it means that much of their work probably occurred behind the scenes. Staff’s first draft was substantially changed, yet there are almost no recorded communications among Mohrig, Moore, Cauley, and Amick regarding document changes.  This either indicates 1) the report re-working was done in a backroom or 2) else there was little/no vetting of the report provided to council . . . neither speaks well of the committee’s due diligence.  Clearly EFC staff members had no further input.  Worse, the full committee never formally approves (through a vote) its findings and recommendations ( . . . a gross violation of committee protocols).  This is confirmed in an email from City Manager Krokoff in response to Council Member Jacobus’s request for an advance copy:  “The presentation was being prepared by the two volunteers on the committee and staff hasn’t seen it.”

So the first time that anyone—citizens, staff, or council–sees this important presentation is when Amick and Cauley actually present it to council.  Amick and Cauley only provided their reports to the City after council’s meeting.  Cauley’s business case was later provided (to citizens) in the December 19^th city council packet; however, Amick’s operational presentation was NEVER provided to citizens.  This is NOT the transparency citizens deserve regarding such an important matter.

In comparing Inglis’ draft final report to Cauley and Amick’s presentations, it is clear that substantial changes were made. The final report was not approved by the entire EFC or discussed in a public meeting with opportunities for community input.  After 6 months of committee work and at least 6 public meetings, it seems Moore and Morhig granted Cauley and Amick broad discretion to present whatever they wanted—citizens, staff committee members, and transparency be damned. 

A few deletions from Inglis’ report did catch my eye . . .

First, costs for an elections superintendent were deleted.  In fact, no city staff costs are included in Cauley’s elections business case.  Apparently staff are free.  This is a large, glaring—and it seems intentional—oversight.  It is also evidence of a strong EFC disposition to both ignore and underestimate costs.  Since Cauley’s business case was presented, estimated elections costs have steadily and substantially risen . . . and are now 57% higher than original estimates and still rising . . . and this is without including any city staff costs. 

Second and more troubling, partisan committee members deleted all discussion of risks inherent in Milton running its elections.  Inglis’ report identified 7 distinct risks, including potential voter disenfranchisement.  However, none of this risk discussion is included in the final EFC report.  Apparently, a sober assessment of risks did not fit the hugely hyped partisan narrative being pushed by Mohrig and his confederates.

The development of the EFC’s final report provides yet another example of an EFC that ran amuck and consistently operated far outside the norms and standards for good governance.  From its inception, Milton’s election initiative has been an unmitigated disaster.  It has been thoroughly infused with incompetence, dishonesty, secrecy, partisanship, and unfairness.  The elections initiative is so tainted at this point that the only remedy is to hit the reset button and start over (perhaps leveraging some of the work already completed).

Advocating for Election Integrity and Voting Rights,

Tim

Note: Don’t forget about my Bits & Pieces page where I provide more detail for readers that want to dig deeper into local politics and government. Link: Bits & Pieces

Note: As always, I am providing full access to my source materials so that readers can draw their own conclusions. Following is the link to the response to my ORR. Use PRR-281-2023 and security key 351818 to retrieve the documents. You can find Inglis’ report and spreadsheet; Cauley’s business case; and Amick’s operational recommendations. Bon Appetit . . . https://miltonga.justfoia.com/publicportal/home/track