It’s Halloween, so it is time for TREATS and for TRICKS!  The treats are email excerpts from Lisa Cauley praising me and the Milton Coalition.  (Yes, I keep my powder dry until it is needed.)  See one excerpt above and one excerpt at the bottom.

Unfortunately, politics is not all treats . . . in fact, what we are seeing from Rick Mohrig’s campaign is mostly TRICKERY . . . never more so than in the attached letter from Lisa Cauley.  Ms. Cauley is a former member of Milton’s Election Feasibility Committee (EFC) and is a hardcore Rick Mohrig supporter. 

It is with great pleasure that I provide Ms. Cauley’s letter to readers because her letter makes a better case for defeating Rick Mohrig than I can ever make.  And if Milton is rid of Mohrig, there is a big bonus treat . . . Milton will also be rid of the hyper-partisan tricksters that have been disrupting Milton’s city government for 2+ years . . . Rick Mohrig’s puppet-masters. 

I am the blogger referenced in Ms. Cauley’s letter.  My opponents—most of them anyway—have smartened up.  They have finally realized that every time they mention “Tim Becker” or “The Milton Coalition,” my readership increases.  The more they try to impugn my credibility, the more my readership increases.  So far this month, my posts have been viewed 5,600 times.

So let’s have some spooky fun and frightful laughs.  Let’s analyze some elements of Ms. Cauley’s letter:

Ms. Cauley laments “low voter participation” in early voting.  Really?  Wasn’t that the intent of the EFC’s election design?  To depress voting . . . at least for certain voters?  After all, voters no longer have the option of early voting outside of Milton.  In past elections, 40% of early voting occurred outside of Milton, especially in Alpharetta.  Early voting days/hours have also been reduced, including elimination of Sunday voting.  And if maximizing voter participation is the goal, then Milton’s early voting location in Crabapple makes absolutely no sense.  Simple common sense would suggest an early voting location in SE Milton (yes, District 3) considering that most voters frequently travel through this area.

It is interesting (hypocritical?) that Ms. Cauley is touting Mr. Mohrig’s experience while at the same time supporting political neophyte Helen Gordon against two-term veteran Carol Cookerly, who has been on council for 5 years . . . longer than the three years that challenger Gordon has lived in Milton.

Ms. Cauley’s comments about staff are especially troubling.  She states that staff’s role on the EFC was simply “to provide support and assistance.”  This is nonsense.  The assigned staff members were (supposed to be) equal participating members in the EFC . . . not servants.  City staff should have been treated as equal and capable committee members, including having a say in and a vote on the final report.  (BTW, citizens should have also been given an opportunity by the EFC to comment on the final report.)  In her letter, Ms. Cauley makes several disconcerting claims without providing any substantiation.  Why?  Because the records (I’ve gathered) do not support her claims.  I wrote an entire blog post on the manipulation of the EFC’s final report that generously references source materials, which are provided at the post.  Click on the following link:  Mohrig Excluded City Staff & Suppressed Elections Findings . . . Violating Committee Standards

Ms. Cauley continues to assert that Milton will save money by running its elections.  I have written 3 blog posts (links provided below) on these mythical savings.  The crux of Ms. Cauley’s argument is this:  City staff are free.  Not a cent of staff costs should be included in the elections business case.  This is ridiculous.  It is standard practice to include opportunity costs in any business case.  And it is standard practice for competent organizations to allocate staff salaries to specific projects.  This is Business 101.  I am quite sure that the Cauley family business allocates its employees’ salaries to specific projects it executes for its customers.  I do the same in my business as do my clients.

Exposing Exaggerated Elections Cost Savings Projections at Milton City Hall

Mohrig Can’t Substantiate Elections Cost Savings Claims . . . Milton Will Pay More For Much Less

Milton’s Projected Elections Costs Now Higher Than Fulton County . . . Taxpayer-Voters Will Be Paying MUCH MORE FOR MUCH LESS

Ms. Cauley asserts that I am “untruthful” and “spreading falsehoods and fabricating a misleading narrative.”  However, despite my invitations to do so, Ms. Cauley has 1) never contacted about any factual errors at the blog nor 2) submitted an alternative narrative that I could publish.  In fact, in the past, Ms. Cauley has had nothing but praise for me and the Milton Coalition blog.  See excerpts of her emails to me and to citizens at the top and bottom of this blog post. 

Ms. Cauley states that Rick Mohrig enjoys the “widespread respect, admiration, and a strong standing in Milton.”  Again, I did an entire blog post about this newfound respect for Rick Mohrig.  Only in the last few years has Rick Mohrig been esteemed by Paul Moore, Laura Bentley, etc.  For over a decade, Mohrig was aligned with Milton’s other political faction . . . the Lusk/Kunz faction . . . and he was despised by the Moore-Bentley-Bailey faction.  Following is a link to my blog post with a letter written by Moore blasting Mohrig:  Paul Moore Blasts Mohrig: “WE WILL NOT TOLERATE YOUR BACKROOM POLITICS.”  Moore’s criticisms largely mirror my posts about Mohrig over the past 6 months.  So what changed?  Well, Mohrig became Moore-Bentley’s patsy.  They are supporting him because they need a puppet on council that they can control.  That is the long-and-short of it.  However, the Lusk-Kunz faction and Milton’s Lunatic Fringe also have their hooks in Mohrig.  So the question becomes:  Which of these three groups—Moore & Bentley, Lusk & Kunz, or the Lunatic Fringe—will control the malleable, lame-duck Mohrig if he is re-elected?  He readily responds to treats but also easily falls for tricks.

Ms. Cauley’s letter mirrors the EFC’s poor-quality process and output.  Ms. Cauley’s letter is just more of the same . . . assertions without substantiation . . . more bias, non-transparency, and poor analysis—for example, hyperlinks to anonymous posts heavy on innuendo and bereft of facts or sourcing.  Please note that I am NOT including the hyperlinks that Ms. Cauley includes in her letter.  Readers know that I adhere to strict publishing standards.  I do not publish communications from untrusted, anonymous sources, especially if such communications make unsubstantiated, poorly sourced, and potentially libelous claims.  Such communications assume voters are morons and can be easily duped.  I hold the opposite opinion.  I believe Milton voters are discerning and accordingly, most will readily reject these anonymous communications as poorly crafted propaganda . . . and nothing more.

Well voters, now that I have debunked all the trickery, it is time to leave you with one more treat (and there are plenty more where these came from) . . . one more email excerpt from Ms. Cauley . . . another email to friends praising me and my objectivity . . . and yes, please forward and share this post with whomever you wish. I encourage it.

Happy Halloween to All!

Advocating For More Treats and Less (Political) Tricks,

Tim

Today, I am posting the sixth and last installment of a six-part series debunking Rick Mohrig’s defenses of his terrible record.  This post debunks Mohrig’s allegations of campaign collusion.  Following is a link to Mohrig’s “Facts Matter” campaign web page.

Mohrig’s Facts Matter

False Assertion #6:  Through pure innuendo, Mohrig implies Cranmer is beholden to Milton Families First, an independent committee, and to MFF’s founders.

This is a serious charge with NO substantiation, only innuendo . . . which seems to be a common theme in Mohrig’s campaign and in his surrogates’ anonymous communications.

Milton Families First (MFF) is an independent committee (not to be confused with a PAC) that was formed in July.  The operative word is “independent.”  Legally, Cranmer’s campaign and MFF must operate independently; they cannot coordinate.  Cranmer has NO control over MFF.  However, MFF and Cranmer do share a common goal of thwarting Mohrig’s re-election . . . a goal shared by me, most of council, and (I believe) a large majority of citizens.  So what?

It is TRUE that Cranmer has accepted campaign contributions from two of MFF’s officers, acting in their capacity as private citizens and participating in the political process . . . as is their right.  These contributions are legal and in no way tie Cranmer to MFF.  Like MFF itself, these two private citizens desire to thwart Mohrig’s re-election bid . . . again a goal they share with Cranmer, myself, most of council, and (I believe) a large majority of citizens.  So what?

Mohrig has accepted a few $1000+ contributions.  I am quite sure he would like more such contributions but hasn’t inspired donors to generously contribute.

Regarding MFF, citizens should judge MFF by its actions.  So far, MFF has enunciated three short-term goals:  to oppose Paul Moore’s candidacy; to oppose Rick Mohrig’s candidacy; and to expose/protest Milton’s corrupt elections design/planning process.  I support all three of these short-term goals . . . as do many Milton voters . . . a large majority, I believe. Longer term, if MFF acts in the furtherance of better governance in Milton . . . if MFF acts as a principled government watchdog . . . then MFF can be force for good in Milton. Again, MFF should be judged by its actions.

A vote for Cranmer and Cookerly is a vote AGAINST innuendo-driven smear campaigns.

Citizens, this post is the last installment in my six-part series debunking Mohrig’s defenses of his record.  As Paul Harvey used to say when signing off . . . now you know the rest of the story.  I am cautiously optimistic that Milton will soon be rid of Mohrig and his dishonesty.  I am confident voters will put Milton’s last political dinosaur out to pasture.

Speaking Truth to Power,

Tim

Note 1:  I am including a pdf file that provides my refutation of all six of Mohrig’s defenses of his record on land use, elections, and campaign collusion.  I urge readers to circulate this file to family, friends, and neighbors.  We must NOT let Mohrig get away with distorting his record and smearing his opponent. You can also click the following link to go to a web page that provides the same information:  Refuting Mohrig’s Two New Campaign Website Pages: Facts Matter and Highway 9

Note 2: I was tempted to get wonky about independent committees and talk about notions of political power distribution. In a nutshell, I am an advocate of checks and balances in government. I am an advocate of shifting power to citizens. Currently, nearly all local power is concentrated in Milton City Council . . . in just seven politicians. I am a fan of entities inside city government (like Milton’s recently gutted Charter Commission) or outside city government that can act to check government overreach. My blog and the Milton Herald have served in this capacity. However, individuals are limited in what they we can do. To really exert pressure on government, citizens must organize and spend money . . . and that legally requires registration as an independent committee . . . there is no way around it. Believe it or not . . . just two individuals purchasing a single sign advocating for/against a candidate that they wave at an intersection meet the definition of an independent committee and are legally required to register as an Independent Committee. I believe this is not just, but currently it is the law in Georgia. I believe Georgia’s law governing independent committee is violative of First Amendment freedoms of speech, assembly, and protest. And the current law certainly discourages citizens from organizing and thus concentrates power in government and politicians, while limiting citizen engagement with politics and government.

Today, I am posting the fifth installment of a six-part series debunking Rick Mohrig’s defenses of his terrible record.  This is my second post about Mohrig’s elections misbehavior.  Following is a link to Mohrig’s “Facts Matter” campaign web page.

Mohrig’s Facts Matter

False Assertion #5:  Milton’s election prep has been free from wrongdoing, and Rick Mohrig had no interference or improper influence.  (directly quoted from his web page)

This allegation is super easy to refute . . . like shooting fish in a barrel (as the saying goes).  The following is from Mohrig’s website:

Both Mohrig and Moore have asserted that the City Attorney’s response (attached below) to three separate complaints to the Georgia state elections board “exonerates” (their word) them from charges of elections misbehavior.  This is laughable and indicative of Mohrig and Moore’s assumption that voters are morons . . . are you sensing a theme here?  The City Attorney is the city’s defense lawyer.  Of course, he is going to assert that the city did nothing wrong . . . that is his job!  Obviously, defense attorneys cannot exonerate their clients.  If they could, our prisons would be empty.  Nevertheless, both Mohrig and Moore have been using the City’s Attorney letter (to the state elections board) as a blanket excuse for their elections misbehavior. 

Unless a voter has been living under a rock, he/she knows that Milton’s elections project has been a complete and utter disaster . . . Mohrig’s signature failure.  That is why Mohrig never boasts or even talks about it . . . unless he is forced to.  Milton will be paying MUCH MORE FOR MUCH LESS.  Costs for Milton to self-run its elections will be at least double the cost Fulton County would have charged . . . for much lower service levels:  fewer polling locations; fewer voting days/hours; no option to early vote outside Milton.

A vote for Cranmer and Cookerly is a vote AGAINST council member interference in elections.

Advocating AGAINST council member interference in THEIR own elections,

Tim

Note:  I am including a pdf file that provides my refutation of all six of Mohrig’s defenses of his record on land use, elections, and campaign collusion.  I urge readers to circulate this file to family, friends, and neighbors.  Voters must NOT let Mohrig get away with distorting his record and smearing his opponent. You can also click the following link to go to a web page that provides the same information:  Refuting Mohrig’s Two New Campaign Website Pages: Facts Matter and Highway 9

Today, I am posting the fourth installment of a six-part series debunking Rick Mohrig’s defenses of his terrible record.  This post and my next post debunk Mohrig’s false elections assertions.  Following is a link to Mohrig’s “Facts Matter” campaign website page.

Mohrig’s Facts Matter

False Assertion #4:  Rick recommended the 2nd polling location be in District 3 when he supported the Committee’s 2 polling location guidance.  (a direct quote from his web page)

To support this especially bold false assertion, Mohrig dishonestly cherry-picks a few initial statements he made in an April 10^th city council regular meeting and later in an April 17^th city council working session.  However, he conveniently and dishonestly omits his final position (and the only position that matters) on polling place locations expressed in the last few minutes of the April 17^th working session.  In the final three minutes of the April 17^th working session, Mohrig states THREE times he is “good” with the recommendation that District 3 be denied a polling place.  This recommendation formed the basis of a motion made two weeks later by Moore, SECONDED by Mohrig, and PASSED by council in a 4-3 vote, with Mohrig providing the DECIDING vote AGAINST—yes, AGAINST–a District 3 polling place.

At the April 17^th city council working session, at 2:33:38, Jan Jacobus first recommends the switch (from a District 3 polling location) to the Milton Park and Preserve (District 2).  Mohrig expresses no opposition and (at 2:33:40) states “I’m good with that.”  Council Member Moore (2:34:00) then provides his support for the switch.  Moore appallingly justifies denial of a District 3 polling location by stating that District 3 has the lowest percentage voter turnout . . . implying District 3 voters do not deserve a polling place.  In response to Moore’s recommendation Mohrig (2:35:00) states “I would be good with that.”  Mohrig concludes the council discussion with a few additional comments, ending by saying (at 2:35:48):  “I’m good with those two voting locations.”  In the span of slightly more than 2 minutes at the conclusion of the April 17th working session, Mohrig states THREE times that is he is “good” with Milton City Hall and Milton Park and Preserve as the two day-of polling locations, leaving District 3 without a polling location.  Following is a link to the video.  Forward to 2:33:35 (and listen for 2 ½ minutes):

The next regular city council meeting occurred on May 1^st.  This is the meeting where council discussed and voted on the number and location of the day-off polling spots.  I suggest watching the entire elections discussion and council vote, which ONLY lasts 9 minutes.  Mayor Jamison ardently argues for a third polling location.  Mohrig is clearly annoyed (about the suggestion for a District 3 polling place) and clearly does not understand basic voting protocols . . . amazing given his long tenure on council.  NEVER does Mohrig recommend the second polling location be in District 3.  NEVER does Mohrig object to District 3 being denied a polling location.  In fact, Mohrig provides the DECIDING VOTE AGAINST adding a District 3 polling location (in a 3-4 vote).  To add insult to injury, Mohrig then SECONDS the follow-on motion for 2 polling locations:  one at Milton City Hall and one at Milton Park & Preserve.  And finally Mohrig provides the DECIDING VOTE TO APPROVE (in a 4-3 vote) an election design that DENIES District 3 a polling location.  His opposition to a polling location in HIS OWN district could not be clearer.  Following is a link to the video.  Forward to 3:31:00

Two weeks later, in the wake of bad publicity over the decision, Mohrig’s radical mob appeared at council to blast the council members who favored the third polling location.  It was gratuitous and disgusting.  Milton’s Conservative mayor was cursed as “woke” and even “Marxist” for daring to advocate for equal voting access in Milton.  What was the point?  The Lunatic Fringe had prevailed.  Council designated only 2 polling locations; District 3 was denied a polling place.  I attribute this outburst to Moore and Mohrig spiking the football and flexing their political muscle.  Fortunately, their maneuver backfired.  They overplayed their hand and citizens rebelled.  This was the last straw for Phil Cranmer, sealing his decision to run for council.  Following is a link to May 15^th general public comment.  Forward to 11:30. These are the people who will be controlling Mohrig if he is elected . . . think about it!

Only because of overwhelming public pressure (stimulated by this blog) did Mohrig reluctantly vote to add back a District 3 polling location at the July 24^th regular city council meeting. 

However, it gets worse. At his “Facts Matter” web page, Mohrig goes beyond denying his pivotal role and lamely tries to shift the blame to City Manager Krokoff and Mayor Jamison for the denial of a District 3 polling location.  He extracts and quotes completely out-of-context (three) sound bites from Krokoff and Jamison.  Anyone half paying attention knows that Krokoff and Jamison were steadfast in their advocacy for three polling places . . . to include a polling place in District 3.  But don’t trust me . . . watch the suggested video clips from April 17^th, May 1^st, and May 15^th.

A vote for Cranmer and Cookerly is a vote for Election Integrity, for Equal Voting Access, and for restoring political sanity to Milton.

Advocating for Election Integrity and Voting Rights,

Tim

Note:  I am including a pdf file that provides my refutation of all six of Mohrig’s defenses of his record on land use, elections, and campaign collusion.  I urge readers to circulate this file to family, friends, and neighbors.  We must NOT let Mohrig get away with distorting his record and smearing his opponent. You can also click the following link to go to a web page that provides the same information:  Refuting Mohrig’s Two New Campaign Website Pages: Facts Matter and Highway 9

Today, I am posting the third installment of a six-part series debunking Rick Mohrig’s defenses of his terrible record.  (This post is my last installment on land use; my next two posts will debunk Mohrig’s claims about elections.)  Following is a link to Mohrig’s “Facts Matter” campaign website page.

Mohrig’s Facts Matter

False Assertion #3:  Through pure innuendo, Mohrig implies Cranmer is beholden to developers

Let me be direct.  It is TRUE that Phil Cranmer has accepted contributions (totaling $4,000) from TWO developers.  However, Mohrig conveniently and deceitfully leaves out 2 critical FACTS.  First, both developers LIVE in Milton so they are private citizens—just like you—participating in the political process.  Second and more importantly, both developers have NEVER developed in Milton (since it became a city) nor ever intend to develop in Milton (and I suspect if either came before council, Mr. Cranmer would recuse himself . . . or else vote against their proposals.)

One of the developer-contributors is Charlie Roberts (and his wife), who contributed $3,000 to Cranmer.  I have never met Mr. Roberts, but I know him by reputation.  He is well regarded as a man of integrity and vision. For several years, Roberts served on Milton’s Design Review Board.  In that capacity, Mr. Roberts took the lead in developing the highly acclaimed District at Mayfield (DaM).  He invested significant effort to lead a year-long, citizen-informed concept plan for 22 contiguous properties south, east, and west of the Milton Library.  This 18-acre concept plan will preserve historic homes and bring a unified Milton-centric vision to an important area of Crabapple.  Hallelujah! Thank you Mr. Roberts!

The DaM concept plan was approved unanimously by city council in June 2023.  (Note:  Mohrig was on the phone during this meeting but dropped off . . . so he did not vote on the DaM . . . just as he failed to show up for the 2021 vote on the Comprehensive Land Use Plan.  Milton needs council members who SHOW UP for important land-use votes.)  Following is a city government link that provides more information about the District at Mayfield.

Milton City Government District at Mayfield Website

It is despicable that Mohrig’s cronies have conducted a smear campaign against Roberts, who has applied his development expertise and experience to craft a cohesive, attractive, and Milton-centric sense-of-place in Crabapple.  Roberts should be applauded rather than vilified. Perhaps Mr. Roberts contribution to Cranmer’s campaign merely reflects a sensible and informed perspective that a similar approach should be applied to the increasingly blighted District 3 (Highway 9-Deerfield-Windward) area, which Mohrig has ignored even though he resides there . . . and which Phil Cranmer has pledged to revitalize.

It is even more despicable that Mohrig implies that Cranmer’s acceptance of money from two respected resident-developers somehow makes him an agent for developers.  This smear campaign is clearly meant to distract voters from Mohrig’s own terrible record on land use described in my previous two posts.

Interestingly, Mohrig also implicitly criticizes Cranmer for the numerous large contributions to the Cranmer campaign.  However, Mohrig’s whining can be attributed to sour grapes.  Mohrig supporter Lisa Cauley hosted a big donor event that failed miserably.  Cauley spent nearly $1000 to raise (no more than) $4000 . . . a dismal outcome for such an event.  Note that rich sponsorships were requested . . . but not coughed up.

It should be noted that the sanctimonious Mohrig has hypocritically accepted a few $1000+ contributions.  He would certainly welcome more large contributions but obviously hasn’t inspired donors to contribute much to his lackluster candidacy.

Advocating Against Innuendo-based Smear Campaigns,

Tim

Note:  I am including a pdf file that provides my refutation of all six of Mohrig’s defenses of his record on land use, elections, and campaign collusion.  I urge readers to circulate this file to family, friends, and neighbors.  Voters must NOT let Mohrig get away with distorting his record and smearing his opponent. You can also click the following link to go to a web page that provides the same information:  Refuting Mohrig’s Two New Campaign Website Pages: Facts Matter and Highway 9

Today, I am posting the second installment of a six-part series debunking Rick Mohrig’s defenses of his terrible record.  Following is a link to Mohrig’s campaign web page dedicated to Highway 9.  In a nutshell, Mohrig preposterously contends nothing much can be done about a metastasizing blight in his district (SE Milton) and provides a menu of excuses for his lack of results.

Mohrig’s Highway 9 Facts

False Assertion #2:  Little or nothing can be done about the ballooning commercial blight in the Highway 9/Deerfield/Windward corridor.

Mohrig has hoisted the white surrender flag regarding blight in SE Milton.  Of course, Mohrig’s assertion that Milton’s hands are largely tied is absurd.  The District at Mayfield in Crabapple (discussed in a future post in this series) is proving otherwise.  The truth is that Mohrig has been mostly AWOL in efforts to re-invigorate Southeast Milton.  His focus has been elsewhere . . . on election interference and on HOA minutiae. He has ignored his own district.  To avoid blame for his gross negligence, Mohrig’s all-to-typical fallback is to offer flimsy excuses.  Following is an extract of Mohrig’s Highway 9 campaign web page.  Rather than man up for the blight in his district, Mohrig provides a litany of excuses.  Read Mohrig’s explanation in his own words and ask yourself:  Is this really the person Milton needs leading efforts to reinvigorate Milton’s largest commercial area? Yes, that was a rhetorical question!

Phil Cranmer has pledged that he will restore District 3’s commercial vigor.  Let’s give Phil that opportunity.  Vote for Phil Cranmer to re-vitalize District 3’s commercial sector.  Cranmer will pull down Mohrig’s white flag of surrender and charge forward to revive SE Milton’s commercial area.

Advocating For Visionary and Aggressive Action to Reverse District 3’ Commercial Blight,

Tim

Note:  I am including a pdf file that provides my refutation of all six of Mohrig’s defenses on his record on land use, elections, and campaign collusion.  I urge readers to circulate this file to family, friends, and neighbors.  We must NOT let Mohrig get away with distorting his record and smearing his opponent. You can also click the following link to go to a web page that provides the same information:  Refuting Mohrig’s Two New Campaign Website Pages: Facts Matter and Highway 9

Voters, because of your relentlessness in questioning him about his record, Council Member Rick Mohrig has been forced to defend his terrible record.  He is now furiously backpedaling and on the defensive.  Thank you, citizens! 

The ever-malleable Mohrig has slimily shifted from his unsuccessful strategy of ignoring his record to instead grossly distorting his record.  In a few instances (the Ebenezer Road rezoning and denying District 3 a voting location), Mohrig actually (tries to) entirely flip the script and to morph himself from villain to hero.  These are acts of desperation.

Mohrig has added two new defensive web pages to his campaign website.  There is little factuality and lots of fakery.  Provided below are links to both pages.  You might be questioning why I would give Mohrig access to my wide readership.  The answer is that Mohrig is his own worst enemy.  His assertions (aka lies and innuendo) are easily refutable and further underscore the case for electing Phil Cranmer (and Carol Cookerly, who has strongly called out Mohrig for his bad behavior).  Mohrig assumes voters are morons who can be easily duped.  I hold the opposite opinion.  I have always trusted the discernment of Milton’s voters . . . and I am confident they will elect Cranmer and Cookerly.  It’s NOT a difficult choice.  I am quite sure voters will NOT countenance a corrupt and dishonest hack politician like Mohrig.

Mohrig’s Facts Matter

Mohrig’s Highway 9 Facts

Through anonymous emails and posts, Mohrig’s surrogates are parroting Mohrig’s lies and innuendo.  Their anonymity begs the question:  Should/will astute voters trust anonymous and clearly slanted communications that provide little/no substantiation or sourcing?

At a new web page entitled “Refuting Mohrig’s Two New Campaign Website Pages: Facts Matter and Highway 9,” I debunk Mohrig’s six defenses of his terrible record.  You can view my new web page by clicking on the navigation menu in the upper left-hand corner of the blog, or you can click on the following link:

Refuting Mohrig’s Two New Campaign Website Pages: Facts Matter and Highway 9

My next six blog posts will address Mohrig’s defenses of his record one-by-one.  I first begin with Mohrig’s feeble defenses of his land-use record.

Long-time readers know that my steadfast position on land use is hardline.  I would NEVER recommend any candidate that did not largely share my positions on land use in Milton.  My positions are shared by Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly.  Conversely, Rick Mohrig has an abysmal, documented land-use record . . . a record he is now twisting.  At his campaign website, Rick Mohrig has made several egregious but also easily falsifiable assertions about land use in Milton.  Today, I address the worst of these assertions . . .

False Assertion #1:  Rick has protected Milton from high-density development.

This is the lie that most has me seeing red.  Why?  Because, I (along with former council members Laura Bentley and Julie Bailey) led the opposition to both rezonings to higher density housing that Mohrig SUPPORTED.  In response to these existential threats to the community, I started this blog and posted two petitions that have garnered over 2,700 signatures.  I KNOW the TRUTH . . . and so do the many citizens that engaged on these rezonings.  In the instance of sewer being extended on Hopewell Road, Mohrig goes silent when asked about it.  Following is a link to my blog post about this sewer extension:

Mohrig Breaks Promise & Votes to Extend Sewer to Hopewell RD Property . . . Doubles Allowable Density

In the second instance of sewer extension–the Ebenezer Road rezoning–Mohrig simply LIES, creating a completely fabricated narrative (that is the opposite of the truth) by ONLY focusing on the second Ebenezer vote where he REVERSED his first Ebenezer vote.  I wrote an entire blog post debunking Mohrig’s heroic myth about the Ebenezer rezoning.  Following is the link:

Mohrig Votes For Ebenezer Rezoning: Cluster Housing & Private Sewer . . . Watch Video

After repeatedly being called out, Mohrig has finally acknowledged the first council rezoning hearing for Ebenezer on April 25, 2016, and his vote for sewer extension (to allow higher density).  However, he asserts that the April vote was the “first unofficial vote” in advance of a “final” vote in June.  This is complete nonsense.  There is no such thing as a “first unofficial vote.”  It is completely fictional.  Conveniently, Mohrig does NOT mention that Lockwood vetoed the first rezoning . . . and that is the only reason the rezoning appeared again before council on June 20, 2016, where Mohrig REVERSED his first vote to approve sewer extension and higher density.  See the following from the Milton Herald.

Mohrig was the villain, not the hero, in the Ebenezer rezoning.  Had Mohrig voted to DENY, the rezoning would have failed (in a 3-3 tie) . . . and Lockwood would not have needed to veto the rezoning.  Instead, Mohrig’s vote to APPROVE was the deciding vote that kept this divisive issue alive for another 8 weeks, causing tremendous acrimony in the community.

Mohrig’s ginormous Ebenezer lie is quite audacious but also quite stupid.  The Ebenezer rezoning set the stage for the biggest battle I have ever witnessed in Milton.  Many hundreds of citizens were engaged on both sides of the Ebenezer rezoning.  They know the truth, so I am flummoxed that Mohrig would float such blatantly false assertions.  However, this sort of deception is classic Mohrig . . . he just covers up his initial lies with more and bigger lies.  Mohrig thinks voters are stupid and easily duped.  Prove him wrong by voting for Cranmer and Cookerly.

Tomorrow, I will debunk False Assertion #2: Little/nothing can be done about the increasing commercial blight in the Highway 9/Deerfield/Windward corridor. Stand by . . .

Advocating Against Sewer Extension and High Density,

Tim

Note:  I am including a pdf file that provides my refutation of all six of Mohrig’s defenses on his record on land use, elections, and campaign collusion.  I urge readers to circulate this file to family, friends, and neighbors.  We must not let Mohrig get away with distorting his record and smearing his opponent.

The first week of early voting in Milton has ended.  During the first 6 days of early voting, ONLY 387 citizens (about 65 per day) cast ballots at Milton City Hall.  There are only 10 more days left of early voting.  I urge citizens not to delay getting to the polls.  Vote tomorrow for Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly (Team C&C).

As my blog readers know, since 2015, I have closely followed Milton city government and politics.  Conservatively, I have invested at least 3,000 hours and over $15,000 in my advocacy for good governance and citizens’ prerogatives.  I have published over 350 blog posts.  I have spoken before council over 100 times.  I posted 2 petitions that were signed by over 2,700 citizens who provided their email addresses for a large email database that I have used (sparingly) to amplify my good governance message.  And I have paid a heavy personal price for my advocacy; I have (successfully) sustained many personal attacks.  Thankfully, my investment has paid off.  Blog traffic and email subscriber-ship are higher than ever.  My email open rates and click-through rates demonstrate a high level of citizen trust and confidence.  Last month, there were nearly 7,000 email opens and blog views. Thank you!

I hope readers will trust me when I tell you that the 2023 municipal elections represent an inflection point for Milton.  The contrast between candidates could not be starker.  I truly believe that the upcoming municipal elections are a referendum on good governance in Milton . . . a battle for the heart and soul of Milton.  At the blog, I have published dozens of posts that describe the dire situation currently facing Milton: ethics scandals; election interference; intrusion into petty HOA issues; disrespect for city staff; and divisive partisanship.  For the past two years, the citizens’ agenda has been hijacked in the service of petty personal agendas and in furtherance of the aims of narrow Special Interests. 

Cranmer and Cookerly represent a clean break with the dysfunction that has roiled City Hall.  Cranmer and Cookerly have a positive and uplifting message.  Both support smart land use.  This means strict interpretation of Milton’s zoning laws, strong fealty to Milton’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and proactive engagement with citizens on land use issues.  Neither supports a Development Authority nor increasing density beyond what current zoning allows.  Both support restoring trust and confidence in local government by raising Milton’s ethical standards and upholding strict accountability.  Both support the highest standards of fiscal responsibility.  Both support redoubling the city’s efforts to enhance public safety and to improve traffic flows in Milton.  Cranmer and Cookerly will represent ALL citizens regardless of who they are, where they live, or their political leanings. Both stand squarely WITH citizens and AGAINST Special Interests, including radical political fringe groups.

Following are links to further information.  I am also attaching pdfs of the case FOR electing Phil Cranmer and the case AGAINST re-electing Rick Mohrig.

One-Stop Shop For ALL Candidate and Voting Information

The Case FOR Electing Phil Cranmer

The Case AGAINST Re-electing Mohrig

Vote for a better future for Milton!  Vote for Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly!

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim

Note:  My focus at the Milton Coalition blog has been on Phil Cranmer (and Rick Mohrig).  However, I also support Carol Cookerly’s re-election bid.  I have not devoted much effort to the District 1 race because Cookerly’s opponent strikes me more as a novelty (i.e., joke) sort of candidate rather than a serious, studied candidate.  My sense is that Milton’s Lunatic Fringe recruited Ms. Gordon, but it’s hard to say . . . because she’s not running much of a campaign and she’s provided very little information about herself and what she stands for.

(Note: I have updated my earlier post to reflect refined costs that I received from a helpful citizen . . . these numbers reflect elections economics even worse than the economics in my original post.)

Keep the following in mind as you read this post.  It is a certainty that, when all costs are considered and accurately estimated, Milton will spend nearly $470,000 on its elections . . . about $253,000 (or 117+%) more than Fulton County would have charged.  Milton will spend $397,000 (or 550%) more than Election Feasibility Committee’s cost estimate!  And this is for much lower service levels:  fewer early voting hours; few polling locations; and no options to early vote outside Milton.  This is a scandalous waste of your hard-earned tax dollars!  A vote for Rick Mohrig is a vote for gross financial irresponsibility.  Taxpayer-voters, read on . . .

Yesterday, the Milton Herald’s Amber Perry published an excellent analysis of Milton’s elections costs that now shows that Milton will pay more . . . much more . . . to self-run its elections than if it had paid Fulton County to run its elections.  Right now, the cost exceeds FuCo’s by 29%, or $63,000+.  Costs will rise a lot more.  Why?  First, some costs are not (yet) included.  Second, the City continues to encounter issues not anticipated (or not fully appreciated) by the Elections Feasibility Committee (EFC).  Following is a link to the Milton Herald article:

Milton Herald: Milton Elections Cost Now $60,000 Higher than Fulton County

For months, I have been predicting this large cost overrun.  And no, I am not a financial wizard. However, I have assembled and reviewed more than my fair share of business cases . . . and written multiple articles for professional journals on this topic.  I am attaching one of those articles at the bottom; Milton violated nearly every one of the fundamental tenets for creating a credible business case.  It became clear to me with regards to the elections business case that “the dog would not hunt.”

And as you read the following, bear in mind that Milton is providing a much lower service level than Fulton County would have provided.  So taxpayer-voters will be paying MUCH MORE FOR MUCH LESS.

• Polling locations reduced from 8 to 2 (but eventually increased to 3 after strong public outcry)
• Reduced early voting hours from both the EFC’s recommendation (206 hours) and Fulton County’s early voting (169 hours) to 149 hours.  For example, Sunday voting was eliminated.
• Early voting can no longer be done outside Milton (at Milton City Hall).  Previously, 40% of early voting occurred outside Milton . . . 30% of it in Alpharetta.

I watched Lisa Cauley’s presentation of the EFC’s business case in December 2022.  (Cauley was a member of the EFC.)  I was underwhelmed to say the least.  I knew there would be enormous future problems.  It was clear that costs had been underestimated or entirely excluded.  Not a penny was estimated for staff costs.  There was no risk analysis.  We now know that city staff was pushed aside by some of the other EFC members, and the staff-developed draft of the final report was materially altered.  The public was not provided any opportunities for input on the final report, which was not put to a vote by the full committee.  It is unclear who exactly assembled the final business case . . . was it just Ms. Cauley?  We do not know because there is scant record of how the final report was developed.

The shoddy final report is exactly what you would expect from a committee that was biased and lacking in elections (and other required) expertise. It was clear that the EFC had a simplistic view of a quite complex matter. After the EFC disbanded, those charged with planning, preparation, and execution had to deal with this complexity (e.g., myriad state rules) and its associated costs (and risks).

Readers might recall that EFC members Lisa Cauley and Rick Mohrig predicted cost savings of (over) $200,000 and $250,000, respectively.  Consider these figures in light of Fulton County’s estimate of $216,565 to run Milton’s municipal elections (Source:  Milton Herald).  Accordingly, Mohrig’s $250,000 savings estimate is an impossibility!  It would mean Milton is turning a profit of $33,500 on its elections!  And Cauley’s estimate would mean elections would only cost around $16,500.  Clearly, this is Voodoo Economics.  Through an Open Records Request, I flushed out Cauley and Mohrig’s lack of substantiation of their highly inflated cost savings.

Further consider that the EFC estimated the 2023 elections would cost only $72,254, so the Milton Herald’s calculated costs are 288% higher (than the EFC’s estimated costs) and rising.  Following is an excerpt from the EFC’s business case.

Note that FuCo’s costs for 2021 were projected to be $84,671.  At the time, Paul Moore expressed outrage at this cost and cited it as a reason for his vote for Milton to run its 2021 elections.  In August 2021, Moore and Mohrig were the only council members to vote FOR Milton running its 2021 municipal elections.  In retrospect, FuCo’s price was a bargain.  And considering how complex we now know elections to be, think about the disaster that would have ensued if Milton ran its 2021 municipal elections.

Citizens, it gets worse . . . much worse.  Some large costs are not yet included in the Milton Herald’s analysis.  My following assumptions are all conservative, so I suspect actual costs will be higher.  Not included were:

• Staff costs for October and November (and beyond).  Assuming staff will devote the same amounts of time in October and November (as they have been recently allocating) and none after November 30^th, this adds another $57,000 to the cost, bringing Milton’s total elections costs to $337,000. (I believe it is reasonable to assume significant time will be spent in the aftermath of the election on clean-up, lessons learned, reporting, analysis, continuing legal matters, etc.)
• Staff time before January 1, 2023.  Milton’s election initiative began in July 2021, so 18 months of staff time must be accounted for.  For example, early on, staff conducted a back-of-the-envelope analysis of costs.  Staff also participated in the EFC.  If we assume Inglis, Lowit, and Krokoff devoted just 5% of their time (2 hours per week) over these 18 months, then a conservative estimate of total staff time is 450 hours.  At a blended rate of $84.00 per hour, the additional costs come to around $38,000, so the total elections costs increase to $375,000.
• Benefits loadings for staff.  This is standard practice in formulating business cases.  Provision of subsidized health insurance, retirement, etc. are real costs.  Conservatively, this benefits loading adds (at least) 35% to the staff costs, so that brings fully loaded staff costs to $326,000 and total elections costs to $459,000
• Additional unanticipated costs, especially additional legal costs.  Unanticipated costs have been par-for-the-course and have been steadily rising.  The city has three pending legal complaints at the state elections board.  Very conservatively, I am adding $10,000 to arrive at $469,000 for total elections costs.

So minimally, Milton will spend $469,000 to self-run its municipal elections.  And again, this cost is for much lower service levels than FuCo would have offered.  So Milton will be spending:

• Infinitely more than Mohrig asserts, because his cost savings estimate of $250,000 implies Milton is turning a profit on its elections!  An impossibility.
• 2900+% more than Ms. Cauley’s cost savings estimate would imply.
• 550% more than the EFC’s 2023 cost estimate.
• 117% more than Fulton County would have charged.

And Milton will be offering reduced service levels:

• 93% fewer early voting locations, as the only early voting location is at Milton City Hall.  It should be noted this is inconvenient for many Milton voters, as it does not conform to Milton’s North-to-South and West-to-East traffic patterns.
• 62.5% fewer polling locations . . . reduced from 8 to 3
• 28% fewer early voting hours. This includes elimination of Sunday voting.

Note also that municipal elections occur in odd-numbered years.  In even-numbered years, Milton’s elections will still be run by Fulton County.  This means entirely different polling locations and significantly different voting days/hours.  And if in an odd-numbered year, there is a county, state, or federal ballot initiative or race, either FuCo will run the entire election or voters will have to travel to two different locations to vote.  Yes, it will be confusing.

So who is the blame?  Well, there is a lot of blame to go around.  However, the lion’s share of blame falls on Milton’s Election Feasibility Committee—primarily Council Members Mohrig and Moore and the two citizen appointees.  As we have discovered through extensive research, these four committee members lacked expertise and were highly biased.  They also marginalized staff EFC members and dismissed/discounted alternative perspectives and facts that did not fit their narrative. Accordingly, the EFC’s recommendations were poorly supported and biased (or more accurately predetermined).  Council was sold a bill of goods.

The person most singly to blame for these vast cost overruns is Rick Mohrig.  Milton’s elections project was his brainchild.  He was the leader of a radical fringe element in Milton that was seeking revenge for what it perceived was a stolen 2020 presidential election—aided and abetted by Fulton County elections authorities.  At first, cost savings were mostly a secondary concern.  However, over time, as Milton’s election project became steeped in incompetence, dishonesty, non-transparency, and partisanship, Mohrig backed away from his integrity and competence arguments (for Milton self-running its elections).  Mohrig began asserting that cost savings were the only driver of Milton’s elections project.  What say yea now Mr. Mohrig? 

Since late July, I have been pursuing Mr. Mohrig and Ms. Cauley on this issue of cost savings.  I even submitted ORRs to get their substantiation of their alleged cost savings.  You can hear Ms. Cauley’s cost savings projections by watching the July 24^th city council meeting.  She asserts “overwhelming findings on how the city would save the taxpayer what we now know is over $200,000.”  Fast-forward to minute 10:00.

Mr. Mohrig has consistently asserted even higher cost savings of $250,000.  However, as he often does, Mr. Mohrig has completely reversed course and is now stating there might be savings.  At the recent Appen Media debate, he stated “I think we’re going to be actually saving money” as if to say cost savings were never expected but rather would be a pleasant surprise.  Voters, this is an Olympic level of political double-talk and deceit.  Forward to 1:21:37 in the debate video.

Video: Milton City Council Debate

It is interesting to note that nowhere at Mr. Mohrig’s campaign website, campaign Facebook page, etc. does he make the first mention of elections.  This is intentional.  Mr. Mohrig knows he is vulnerable on the issue of elections.  What he hoped would be his signature achievement has become his signature failure.  And the less it is discussed, the better. (The same can be said of ethics and accountability. Mohrig never mentions it, despite its looming presence in Milton’s government over the past 2 years.)

Voters, Milton’s elections project has been a disaster from its inception.  As I have documented in 20 posts, Milton’s elections initiative has been wracked by dishonesty, non-transparency, partisanship, and incompetence.  The result has been shoddy and biased election design and planning.  And now we are discovering that Milton’s election initiative has wasted a lot of hard-earned tax dollars.  Mr. Mohrig often and adamantly promotes his fiscal chastity, while he promiscuously wastes your hard-earned tax dollars.  It is time to give Mr. Mohrig the boot.

Please forward to family, friends, and neighbors. Every Milton voter needs to understand the huge waste of tax dollars resulting from Milton’s failed election project.

Advocating For Election Integrity and Fiscal Accountability,

Tim

Note: The Milton Herald does not provide detailed calculations. I have assumed its figures and calculations are correct and have used its data and cost estimates as a starting point for my calculations and cost estimates. I have created a spreadsheet that I will clean up and format and then provide to readers for their verification and use. I will post the spreadsheet at Bits & Pieces.

I believe that my assumptions overall are conservative, meaning I believe that elections costs are even higher than I projected. However, even if my cost estimates are a bit high, the overall message is the same: 1) Milton is paying much more for its elections than it would have paid if FuCo ran its elections and 2) the EFC wildly underestimated elections costs.

Early voting begins tomorrow:  October 16^th.  Milton’s 2023 municipal elections are seminal . . . comparable to the 2017 elections.  This election is really about the heart and soul of Milton.  The choices could not be starker.  Does Milton continue its steep downward trajectory and crash-and-burn or does Milton pull out of its nosedive and soar upward?  Do citizens want a continuation of the extreme dysfunction, dishonesty, drama, partisanship, and pettiness that has wracked local government for 2+ years?  Or do citizens want to restore sanity to government . . . and return to non-partisanship, competence, integrity, and strategic focus?  Beginning tomorrow the choice is yours.

Anyone paying attention knows that for the past two years, it has been one bad story after another in the Milton Herald and other media outlets.  Some of the city’s dysfunction has to do with council’s penchant for interfering in petty HOA issues.  This interference resulted in ethics charges against Paul Moore.  The resulting shameful ethics scandal dragged on for 15 long months.  Despite spending $100,000 and filing multiple appeals, Moore was unable to beat the rap on 3 ethics charges.  Worse still has been Milton’s badly tainted elections project, which has been permeated by dishonesty, partisanship, non-transparency, and incompetence.  It is Milton’s elections project, particularly denial of a third polling location, that has caused average citizens to take notice, to push back, and to demand change at City Hall.

I have created two new pages at the Milton Coalition Blog.  One page is The Case FOR Electing Phil Cranmer and the other page is The Case AGAINST Re-electing Rick Mohrig.  Attached to this blog post are pdfs of these web pages for distribution by readers to friends and neighbors.  Please do you part to return sanity to local government.

The Case FOR Electing Phil Cranmer

The Case AGAINST Re-electing Mohrig

Following is a link to my one-stop shop for voting and candidate information.  This Voter Information page is my one blog page/post that is not colored by my opinion.  Provided here are candidate websites, Facebook pages, and LinkedIn pages.  You can also access the government website for mandatory campaign finance reports to view who donated and how much; money raised and spent; etc.  I have provided information on where to vote and voting dates/hours.  Also included is a link to the video of the recent Appen Media candidate debate.  I particularly recommend viewing the debate’s closing statements, which highlight the stark choice between Cranmer and Mohrig.

One-Stop Shop For ALL Candidate and Voting Information

Please join me in supporting Phil Cranmer. Here is what you can do:

• Learn more about his candidacy at Phil’s Campaign Website
• Visit and follow/like his Phil’s Campaign Facebook Page
• Attend one of Phil’s meet-the-candidate events.
• Proudly plant a Cranmer campaign sign in your yard.
• Make a financial contribution: Donate to Phil’s Campaign
• Email, text, tweet, and call your family, friends, and neighbors about Phil. Forward this email.
• Direct voters to the Milton Coalition Milton Coalition Blog

Most importantly, vote for Phil Cranmer for City Council. Voting is at-large, so EVERY Milton citizen can vote for Phil. Early voting starts October 16^th and election day is November 7^th. Make your vote count . . . Vote For Phil Cranmer.

Advocating For Clean, Competent, Courageous, and Citizen-centric Government,

Tim

Note:  My focus at the Milton Coalition blog has been on Phil Cranmer (and Rick Mohrig).  However, I also support Carol Cookerly’s re-election bid.  I have not devoted much effort to the District 1 race because Cookerly’s opponent strikes me more as a novelty (i.e., joke) sort of candidate than a serious, studied candidate.  My sense is that Milton’s Lunatic Fringe recruited Ms. Gordon, but it’s hard to say . . . because she’s not running much of a campaign and she’s provided very little about herself and what she stands for.