When I first began promoting Phil Cranmer’s candidacy, I must admit that my support was more anti-Mohrig than pro-Cranmer.  However, through Cranmer’s statements, his debate performance, his social media posts, and some conversations (I’ve had) with him, I have come to know, respect, and admire Phil.  He is an impressive person.  Phil is genuinely smart, kind, committed, and humble.  He is a dedicated family man and community servant.  He is married with two young daughters.  He is President of his HOA and has served for 8 years as Mohrig’s appointee to Milton’s Parks and Recreation Advisory Board.  I can only assume Mohrig must see the same qualities in Phil (his appointee) that I see.  Phil is an accomplished corporate executive that will bring much needed business acumen and experience to city council. 

Phil will tell you that initially he was a reluctant candidate.  However, he became increasingly alarmed by dishonesty and dysfunction in Milton’s City government.  He felt unease with rising and senseless partisanship and division.  He sensed a growing distance between citizens and local government.  Phil was dismayed by a city council that was ignoring strategic priorities to instead address petty and personal issues.  He saw a city bogged down in a long-running ethics scandal and threatened by the rising influence of Special Interests.  Phil was especially troubled by many and serious problems in Milton’s municipal elections initiative.  The last straw for Phil (and also Doug Hene) was city council’s adamant rejection of a third polling location in District 3, which Mohrig represents and where Phil lives.  To make matters worse, two weeks after the vote, a small hyper-partisan mob appeared (as they often do) before city council to gratuitously gloat and to blast council members that voted for a third polling location.  It was at this time that average citizens began paying attention and rebelled at the ugly political situation in Milton.  At this point, Phil (and Doug Hene) felt a civic duty to run.  Thanks to both Phil and Doug!

So it is with great pleasure that I heartily endorse Phil Cranmer for the District 3 City Council seat.  He is the right person at the right time.  Following is my one-page summation of Phil’s positions on issues facing Milton.  It is my Phil Will list.  (I did not collaborate with Phil on this endorsement or my list).  I am including a pdf file of my Phil Will campaign flyer (at the bottom of this email/post) in hopes that my readers will forward it to friends and neighbors.  Milton needs Phil Cranmer.

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

Tim

***********************************************************************************************

The Milton Coalition Blog has always and intentionally been non-partisan.  And this blog post is a plea for non-partisanship in Milton . . . or more precisely a return to non-partisanship . . . and some semblance of political sanity. 

In writing this post, I feel it is incumbent upon me to explain my political leanings.  I am lifelong staunch Conservative.  My conservatism is of the durable kind.  It begins with John Locke, flows through the Founding Fathers, and finds modern expression in thinkers like Frederic Hayek, Milton Friedman, and James Q. Wilson and in leaders like Barry Goldwater and especially Ronald Reagan.  I care nothing for contemporary talking heads on the far right and the far left who dispense partisan infotainment and won’t warrant even a footnote in the history of politics.  I understand and appreciate that Conservatism’s foundational tenet is maximizing and protecting liberty . . . and that government’s primary purpose is to secure our liberty.  This means true Conservatives unwaveringly believe in limited government, low taxes, entrepreneurship, individual responsibility, strong defense, and free trade.  Unfortunately, true conservatism often gets diluted/polluted by nativism, nationalism, crony capitalism, protectionism, moralism, censorship, and sometimes even authoritarianism.  Which brings me to Milton’s Lunatic Fringe . . .

The rabid radicals that have run amuck in Milton are NOT Conservatives in any sense of the word.  They identify as Republicans, although Republican is a label anyone can facilely apply to themselves.  Milton’s Lunatic Fringe are best identified as far right-wing extremists . . . so far to the right that they fall off the political spectrum.  Ironically, they most closely resemble—at least in their tactics—their brethren on the extreme far left.  (See political horseshoe graphic above.)

Milton’s Lunatic Fringe don’t think or act like the other 99% of us—whether conservative or progressive or somewhere in between.  They reside in constant state on blind fury; they lack basic self-control.  This result is often combative behavior, such as harassing and brashly confronting those with whom they disagree.  For example, after the October 4^th debate, several radicals antagonized council candidate Cranmer.  Of course, we have seen extreme expression of their rage in clearly (and constitutionally unprotected) libelous speech at council and recent death threats to the mayor, which one recent speaker at council dismissed as “manufactured.”

The Lunatic Fringe are paranoid and conspiratorial in their thinking.  Accordingly, they operate in secretive ways in Milton.  They use aliases and congregate on clandestine social media platforms.  Even within their underground social media groups, they are creating private chat groups, with admittance based on clearing especially high benchmarks for partisan purity.  They have even engaged in Soviet-style purges of members that don’t meet their extremist partisan standards or that have blasphemed against their ideological orthodoxies.  The leaders of these groups have exempted themselves from their own published standards of conduct; they routinely post derogatory posts.  These radicals mostly think and communicate in memes.  You won’t find content on their sites even remotely resembling logic and facts.  They publish and deliver anonymous newsletters to our driveways.  Their primary means of engaging opponents are personal attacks and confrontations meant to intimidate.  They cannot refute their opponents’ arguments, so instead resort to cancel-culture techniques of shouting down or impugning the credibility of their adversaries . . . the other 99% that do not agree with them.

Many of these radicals have forsaken democratic means for achieving their objectives.  They’ve given up on America.  Some in Milton even unpatriotically fly the US flag upside down.  Even though they give lip service to “election integrity,” they do not perceive elections as a vehicle for expressing the popular will but rather as a malleable instrument for achieving their partisan agenda.  We have experienced this approach right here in Milton.  Over the past two years, we have witnessed a process for elections design, planning, and preparations that was steeped in controversy and that was rife with dishonesty, secrecy, and extreme ideological bias.  Facts and logic were summarily sacrificed at the altar of petty partisanship.  City staff were disrespected, marginalized, and ultimately excluded.  The result was an election design that made voting less convenient for ALL voters and especially inconvenient for Milton’s least well-off citizens (even with the addition of a District 3 polling location).  And shockingly, these much lower election service levels will come at a higher cost than if Fulton County ran Milton’s elections.  A similar lack of integrity now permeates Rick Mohrig’s political campaign, with its fake forums; meetings with poll workers; and attempted use of governmental authority to suppress his opponent.

Sadly, for the past 2 years, Milton’s vanishingly small band of political radicals has strongly influenced politics and government in Milton.  They compensate for their small stature with fanaticism and hysterical antics.  They seek to infect Milton with the divisive and dysfunctional Washington DC-style partisanship that most of us have come to loathe. Unfortunately, for too long, this Lunatic Fringe was indulged by a weak city council that appeased them.  Weakness is provocative . . . appeasement only emboldened these radicals and their handlers.  Through its indulgent responses to Milton’s manic mob, council let the barbarians through the gate.  Provided encouragement and cover by Council Members Moore and Mohrig, these partisans infested Milton City Hall, interfering (often in the shadows) in Milton’s elections project.  However, they overplayed their hand.  With the denial of a third polling location, average Milton citizens—both Conservative and Progressive–began to pay attention and were repulsed by what they were witnessing.  These normal citizens—the other 99% of us-–rebelled . . . and we have been fighting back and winning.  Thankfully, the Lunatic Fringe has been (mostly) exorcised from city government, although troublingly a few have been hired as poll workers.  With their power slipping away, they are now desperate.  Like a wounded and cornered animal, the Lunatic Fringe will likely resort to increasingly extreme misconduct between now and election day.  We saw this with the death threats to the Mayor and his family.  Could it get worse?  And we’ve seen it with increasingly vitriolic tantrums at council.  If Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly are elected, the radicals know they will be demoted to the status of plain ordinary citizens and their glory days at City Hall will be over.  Additionally, the FULL truth about Milton’s elections project will finally be revealed.

So what’s wrong with partisanship?  Well, from both a practical and policy perspective, partisanship really has no place in Milton.  I have been involved in city politics and government since 2014 and I have never once witnessed a policy issue that broke along party lines.  Even Milton’s election initiative needn’t have been divisive.  Unfortunately, for reasons that are still not entirely clear, Milton’s government deviated from its rules for committee formation and formed an ideologically biased elections committee . . . with predictable results . . . infection of city politics and government with divisive partisanship that soon metastasized throughout Milton’s body politic.  This partisanship–along with the shameful Paul Moore ethics scandal and council’s preoccupation with petty HOA issues–has distracted city government from its strategic priorities.  Worse, partisan chaos is providing welcome cover for corruption and for special interests to exercise influence.  The only path back to non-partisan sanity and civility is to elect Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly.  A rejection of partisanship requires a rejection of Rick Mohrig.

In closing, I urge citizens to watch two videos that I am confident confirm the dangers I have described above.  First is a video of general public comment at Monday’s City Council Meeting.  Eight uber-angry speakers spewed 40 minutes of conspiratorial, delusional, and (sometimes) just plain weird venom.  These hyper-partisans have been regularly ranting at council for over two years.  Their increasingly tedious tantrums foreshadow a city government under a Rick Mohrig regime . . . a municipal version of dystopia.  Forward the video to 12:30. 

The second video is of Wednesday night’s candidate debate.  If you have just 5 minutes, I would suggest that you watch Cranmer and Mohrig’s closing statements. 

Cranmer was crisp and specific.  He did not pull his punches.  Cranmer painted a stark and compelling contrast between himself and Mohrig.  Cranmer called for an end to destructive partisan drama in Milton and a return to sanity.  It was masterful.  Conversely, Mohrig gave a bland, mealy-mouthed, and uninspiring closing statement.  Mohrig came across as just another stereotypical say-nothing/do-nothing hack politician. Forward to 1:37:00:

Milton City Council Candidate Debate.

Milton’s upcoming elections provide an unambiguous choice for city government between 1) continued partisan chaos and rancor with a focus on minutiae and appeasing Special Interests or 2) restoration of non-partisan cooperation and civility with a focus on strategic priorities and citizens’ prerogatives.  It is not a difficult choice. Please vote for political sanity . . . Please vote for Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly for Milton City Council.

Advocating For Non-Partisanship and a Return to Political Sanity,

Tim

(The original post has been corrected. The original post stated that Mohrig voted for the CLUP. A sentient reader pointed out that Rick Mohrig was actually not at the council meeting when the CLUP was approved. He was absent . . . no reason given. Accordingly, it is unknown how he would have voted had he been in attendance.)

Sorry for the higher volume of blog posts, but it is election season.  And my guess is that blog readers are hungry for information . . . beyond the mindless memes that I have seen at one local double-top-secret Lunatic Fringe Facebook page.

Today, I want to directly take on the issue of Development Authorities.  It seems that candidates Hene, Cranmer, and Cookerly are being painted as supporters of a Milton Development Authority.  This Development Authority is being characterized as an entity that would essentially approve/manage all development in Milton.  It would be mostly comprised of developers who would have full authority over development in Milton.  Elected officials (i.e., City Council) would be mostly or entirely removed from development decision-making.

I first heard about a Milton Development Authority at Candidate Helen Gordon’s campaign website.  Ms. Gordon asserts that “She will rally against a Development Authority that will further remove Milton residents from decisions that affect their homes.”  Well.  (BTW, Ms. Gordon is also pro-puppy, enjoys Oxygen, recycles, and is adamantly opposed to slavery.) 

Ms. Gordon is a California transplant who has lived in Milton . . . all of 3 years; she is a city government neophyte.  (City observers tell me she attended her first city council meeting after she announced her candidacy.) So I assumed Gordon was struggling with terminology and perhaps she was referring to Milton’s Community Development, which is the department in Milton that processes development issues and brings major zoning matters to council for discussion and approval/disapproval.  However, it turns out that Development Authorities are a topic that really is being discussed in Milton.  At Monday night’s City Council meeting, several Mohrig supporters railed against this Development Authority that was supposedly lurking in their opponents’ campaign platforms.  I have searched high and low at candidate websites, Facebook pages, campaign mailers, etc. and I have found nothing that would indicate support among ANY of the candidates for a Development Authority.  I also know that candidates Cranmer and Hene have stated their firm opposition to a Development Authority.  (I do not know candidate Cookerly’s official stance but have found nothing that would indicate she is supportive.)

However, not to be deterred, I continued my search.  Somewhere in the vast reaches of Milton—other than Ms. Gordon’s vanilla campaign website—surely, I would find this elusive Development Authority . . . and perhaps Bigfoot.  I next consulted the City of Milton’s website.  First, I used the search engine.  I came up with bupkis.

Next, I consulted Milton’s strategic plan.  Surely, if Development Authorities are important, they are to be found there.  The search results came up 0/0, so again nothing.  BTW, there are no references to elections in Milton’s strategic plan either, so citizens need to press Mohrig about why he took us down that bottomless rabbit hole, especially because he frequently references the strategic plan as being the city’s guiding document.

Plunging deeper into Milton’s city website, I consulted Milton’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP).  And Eureka!  I found five—yes, five—references to a Development Authority.  So finally, I had found a legitimate reference to a Development Authority (but I did not find Bigfoot).  Below is a montage of the 5 references.  Nowhere is a Development Authority described, but it is a project scheduled for 2025/6.  The word “pursue” is obviously vague.  The paragraph in the upper right-hand corner is from meeting minutes recorded for the 6^th CLUP committee meeting held on April 29, 2021. 

So yes, there is admittedly some cause for concern.  So here is where things get interesting.  It is important to understand the CLUP committee is a large committee (17 members I think) that includes city council members as liaisons.  Guess who they were?  Former council member Laura Bentley and current council member Paul Moore . . . now big Mohrig supporters (but previously big Mohrig despisers) . . . and aligned with the folks that are howling in protest about Development Authorities.  If anyone on council should know about Development Authorities, it is Paul Moore and Laura Bentley.  I usually do not repeat hearsay, but I am told that Bentley has been whipping up citizens on this topic of Development Authorities.

So my suggestion is that citizens concerned about Development Authorities, especially Mohrig supporters, write to Bentley and Moore (Mohrig’s boosters) to ask what are Development Authorities, why they voted for them, why they are now opposed, and what evidence they have that Hene, Cranmer, or Cookerly support Development Authorities.  Following are their email addresses:

paul.moore@miltonga.gov,laura.bentley@miltonga.gov

I admit that it is entirely possible that there is other documentation in Milton about Development Authorities, and it is possible that some candidates may have expressed support in some form or fashion.  However, so far, I have found nothing besides what I provided above.  If citizens find any other documentation about Development Authorities, please send it to me and I will post the information somewhere at the blog.  Thanks.

My sense is that the Mohrig campaign is using the Development Authority issue to detract from Mohrig’s poor record on land use, which includes voting to extend sewer multiple times (despite vowing not to).  And my hypothesis is that this Development Authority hysteria has been mostly manufactured to win cheap political points.  It seems to be a political bogeyman.  We’ll see . . .

Advocating For Truth in Politics and Government,

Tim

Postscript:  Long-time readers know that I got into city politics back in 2015 because of land use issues.  Readers know that I have near-zero tolerance for rezonings, variances, and other zoning hijinks.  And my strict stances on land use are why I severed my partnership with Council Members Moore and Bentley, when both supported nearly 30 variances at Birmingham Crossroads—none of which were justified.  Based on my extensive experience, I am confident that this notion of a Development Authority, as it has been explained to me, would have ZERO chance of being approved by City Council . . . ZERO. Again, I think a Milton Development Authority is probably just a political bogeyman and nothing more.

Note: The original post was corrected to reflect that Council Member Rick Mohrig was absent from the council meeting when the CLUP was approved. Upon being notified of the error by a friendly, I immediately corrected the blog post and posted a correction notice at the top of the blog post. And I do occasionally make factual errors. Since I began the blog, my policy is to promptly correct all factual errors. Over the years, I have had to make about a half dozen such corrections. Interestingly, only allies have ever notified me of errors. My adversaries frequently grouse about the MC Blog being fake news or spreading disinformation, but never once have they notified me of any factual errors. Enough said . . .

On October 4^th (Wednesday), Appen Media will host a debate among the candidates running for Milton City Council in the 2023 elections.  I urge citizens to attend.  The debate will be live-streamed, so you can watch it at home.  However, I would encourage voters to attend in person.  The Appen debate will be a real give-and-take debate with opportunity for rebuttal.  No topics will be off limits, including Rick Mohrig’s record. 

Attendance is not just about becoming a more informed voter . . . attendance is (more importantly) about taking a firm stand for clean, transparent, and honest politics and government.  If you have been regularly reading this blog, you are already aware that Council Member Rick Mohrig and his cronies recently organized a phony debate.  It was a not-so-clever trick to avoid a real debate.  One of the fake forum’s rules—you really cannot make this up—was a prohibition against questions about Rick Mohrig’s record . . . using weasel words, the sponsors stated that “any question targeting one candidate will NOT be asked.”

So who will be attending the Appen debate?  Last I heard from Appen, Helen Gordon stated she would not attend, citing a previous commitment.  Thank Goodness for previous commitments!  Gordon’s performance at the phony debate was abysmal.  You would think an acting coach and drama professional could at least fake it better.  I can only guess at how poorly she would perform in a real debate.  Last I heard, Rick Mohrig had not responded to Appen’s invitation to the debate.  I hope I am wrong, but I doubt Mohrig will show.  He cannot and will not defend his poor record.  After all, that was the whole point of Mohrig’s fake forum . . . to avoid a real debate where he might have to explain his poor performance and misconduct as a council member.

**********************************************************************************************

MOHRIG’S FAKE FORUM (PART 2): Investigation Reveals Even More Fakery

And speaking of the phony debate, on September 18th, I posted an exposé about the (September 27^th) fake forum.  However, through further investigation, I uncovered much more dishonesty and deception.  Read on . . .

The Concerned Citizens for Georgia (aka the Mohrig campaign) circulated flyers to advertise their phony candidate forum.  The flyer is attached.  The forum organizers have been incompetently trying to fool citizens into believing they are a legitimate and non-partisan group, when they are clearly just an extension of the Mohrig campaign.  This is typical duplicity for the Mohrig campaign and raises some potentially actionable ethical and legal issues (that I won’t broach here but may take up with elections/ethics authorities).  Of course, with my initial investigation, I blew the cover of the organizers and proved the illegitimacy of their CCGa.  So CCGa pivoted to a slightly different name in their flyers.  Concerned Citizens for GA substituted “for” with “of” . . . they became the Concerned Citizens OF Georgia.  The following was printed at the bottom of the forum flyer in tiny font.

Unfortunately, the slight name change did not work either.  There is . . . or (more accurately) was . . . a Concerned Citizens of Georgia.  However, Concerned Citizens of Georgia was administratively dissolved by Georgia’s Secretary of State on September 9^th.  You really can’t make this stuff up!

Concerned Citizens of Georgia still has a Facebook page (with 14 followers), but the last posting was in March, so there is no mention of CCGa’s phony forum.  Furthermore, there are no postings or other information that would indicate that CCGa has ever organized political debates, as the forum organizers asserted.  So the second name was also a bust . . . another swing and a miss.

The CCGa did proceed with their phony candidate forum at Saint Aidan’s church.  Rick Mohrig signs lined Cogburn Road on the approach to the church . . . a clear sign of the organizers’ partisanship.  Interestingly, in the run-up to the debate, Mohrig’s internet trolls tried to pressure Mohrig’s opponent Phil Cranmer into participating in the debate . . . he and Cookerly did not take the bait.

Karen Dubin’s Plan B did not work . . . so onto plan C . . . yet another name change.  This time, the phony forum organizers opted for a more radical and corny name change . . . drum roll . . . Concerned Citizens Horse Country.  It is just one more transparent but failed attempt to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for the organizers.  However, an internet search provides just one result that provides no information about this political group.  (Note: It does seems this CCHC group did organize a debate for the Congressional 6th District in 2022. However, it is unclear who they are and their actual affiliation with organizers of this debate. No information is provided at the one site I found. This lack of transparency is typical Mohrig.) Following is a photo of the sparse crowd just as the “forum” was breaking up.

Oh, and Karen Dubin, who organized this phony forum under another of her names (Karen Gwyn) has once again changed the name she is using. She is now Karen Zlotnick. She posted the following at Nextdoor. And when she posted this, Ms. Dubin/Gwyn/Zlotnick knew that Ms. Cookerly had already declined (because she was attending her mother-in-law’s memorial service out-of-town) and Mr. Cranmer had not responded. Never let the truth get in the way of a good lie . . . or even a bad, transparent lie. Zlotnik’s announcement that Cookerly and Cranmer were attending was just a ruse to goose attendance. It did not work. Attendance was sparse.

This is the deception and secrecy we have come to expect from Mohrig’s political comrades . . . fake names, fake organizations, secret Facebook groups, anonymous publications, etc. It is the same deception and backroom machinations we have witnessed from Mohrig on council.

Citizens, this is just how Mohrig operates.  It is 24×7 treachery . . . and as you can see, he and his cronies are not very good at deception.  Their dishonesty is only exceeded by their incompetence.  It is so easy to expose Mohrig and his comrades that it is not even fun anymore.  For 2+ years, they have been caught countless times with their dirty hands in Milton’s cookie jar.  Mohrig’s campaign mirrors his never-ending misbehavior on council.  So far, we have witnessed Mohrig and/or his minions using governmental authority to suppress his opponent; meeting secretly with poll workers and then inventing a hacking story to cover up the meeting; using internet trolls to harass and bait his opponent; and orchestrating a phony candidate forum.  I believe that with these tactics, Mohrig and his associates might have engaged in actionable ethical and legal violations . . . and this includes the organization and conduct of the phony campaign forum.

Following is a link to my original post, which has the above story (Part 2) appended to it, so you can read the full story at one blog post: Busted!!  Deceptive Candidate Forum . . . A Clumsy and Transparent Political Set-up (Parts 1&2)

As always, I am providing all of my source materials, so readers can judge these matters for themselves.  I am confident that you will arrive at my conclusions.

Advocating For Campaign Integrity,

Tim

Note 1:  In fairness to Ms. Dubin or Ms. Gwyn or Ms. Zlotnik (or whatever name she is using this week), in the past, Ms. Dubin has organized (I am told) at least one legitimate candidate forum/debate.

Note 2:  I strive not to name or even reference private citizens in my blog posts.  This is because I do not want to dissuade average citizens from participating in local politics and governance.  However, Dubin is critical to telling the story of Milton’s election fiasco.  Furthermore, Dubin is a partisan activist leader.  Accordingly, Ms. Dubin is political figure and thus is fair game.  The same is true for Lisa Cauley.