Incumbent Jan Jacobus easily defeated challenger Ike Yancy for the District 3 Milton City Council seat. Mr. Jacobus garnered a majority of votes in all (but one) precincts in Milton.
Congratulations to Mr. Jacobus! And thanks to Mr. Yancy for stepping up and challenging Mr. Jacobus. Milton benefits from competitive elections.
I have been poring over the election results and I will provide more detailed analysis and commentary in a later post. Suffice to say that Miltonites—as they always do—selected the better candidate. As I’ve discussed in previous posts, Mr. Yancy presented an unacceptable level of risk of 1) detrimental disruption at council and 2) serving as a conduit for interference from aggrieved former council members and a few wacko political operatives.
Over the past few weeks, the blog experienced a high volume of visitors seeking information on the election and candidates. Thank you for your trust and confidence in the MC blog. I especially appreciate readers so generously sharing the blog with fellow voters. Following is a graphic showing the number of shares of the blog this election season on various social media platforms. These shares vastly expand and amplify the impact of the MC blog. Thank you.
A reminder. Tuesday, November 4th is Election Day. Early voting has concluded.
The only competitive local race is the District 3 City Council seat. Voting is at-large (for all city council seats), which means all Miltonites (regardless of where they live) can vote for the District 3 representative.
Following is a link to my page providing links to useful information to help with your decision. This includes links to candidates’ social media websites. My 2025 Election Guide does not provide any commentary on the candidates. I would especially recommend looking at the candidate finance reports . . . very interesting and revealing reading. (See Note 1.)
I am not endorsing a candidate in the District 3 election. Neither candidate clears my bar for endorsement. However, as I’ve explained in a recent blog post, incumbent Jan Jacobus seems preferable to challenger Ike Yancy. Following is a link to my analysis and commentary on the District 3 race:
In a nutshell, Jacobus is a passive, do-no-harm sort of candidate who has shown leadership on the Highway 9/Deerfield (renewal) master plan, which his opponent Yancy has heartily endorsed. Conversely, Yancy offers a disruptive alternative, which voters may (perhaps understandably) desire. However, there is good disruptive and bad disruptive. Based on his posts (particularly at NextDoor and Facebook), Yancy strikes me as pretty clueless/uninterested (he very rarely comes to council) and overly reliant on a few former, discredited council members—Laura Bently, in particular–so highly susceptible to manipulation, I believe. This is a recipe for unproductive chaos and disruption at council . . . a return to the extreme council dysfunction of 2022-23 when Mohrig and Moore were running amuck in city government . . . a lot of drama and little progress. Additionally, my sense is that Yancy, because of his posts about diminishment of property values along Highway 9, would have to recuse himself from the only issue he really seems to care about: the Highway 9 widening project. It would seem that Yancy would best serve the community by continuing as a Highway 9 watchdog rather than as an ethically recused council member.
Finally, a warning. In the closing days of the election, I’ve seen some questionable (and desperate) tactics by some Yancy supporters, particularly former council members and a few shady local political operatives. Truth-in-Labeling is important. Some endorsing organizations are just names, with nothing behind them (no internet presence, no funding, no members). Don’t be fooled by labels like “conservative” or “concerned citizens.” And be careful about PAC endorsements. Research the PAC . . . use AI search engines to find out what these PACs really are about . . . you might be surprised. Some former politicians and political hacks cynically believe that you are plain stupid, and they can dupe you with phony organizations and meaningless endorsements announced with great fanfare (including a lot of American Flag emojis). They’re hawking political snake oil. However, Milton voters have consistently proven they can easily see past the BS and choose the best candidates (while summarily disposing of wayward elected officials) . . . a lesson that Milton’s political miscreants never seem to learn.
In closing, thank you to my readers. I appreciate your support over the past 10 years. Over the past few weeks, blog traffic has steadily increased as election day approaches. It cheers me that voters are seeking information to make informed decisions about the election. It is committed and informed voters like you that make Milton so special.
Advocating For Good Governance,
Tim
Note 1: The campaign finance reports are especially revealing in that the discredited ex-council members and political hacks who are “backing” Yancy (and aspire to be his puppet-masters) certainly have not put their money where their (loud) mouths are. Yancy reported no new contributions in his last campaign financial report. Zero contributions other than a loan he made to his campaign. This is not surprising as Milton’s political miscreants are mostly driven by self-interest. One ex-council member has even shamefully re-purposed their campaign/political Facebook page to sell services . . . monetizing their once-upon-a-time political followers for self-enrichment purposes . . . likely a violation of both Facebook rules and federal election laws, but certainly an affront to common sense ethics (and to their business competitors). You really can’t make this stuff up! More about this switcheroo in a post-election blog post.
Added note: If ex-council members and local political jihadis aren’t willing to back up their words with money for Yancy, voters might logically wonder why they should even consider voting for Yancy? It’s a deja vu moment in Milton politics. It reminds me of Helen Gordon’s campaign in 2023. A lot of talk from Milton’s excommunicated political priesthood, but no money in the offering plate.
I promised an analysis of the 2025 District 3 election in Milton, so here it is. It is possible that this will be my only post before election day. (See Note 1.) We’ll see. Perhaps, events will play out such that I feel obliged to publish additional posts. BTW, early voting began October 13th. Election day is November 4th.
The District 3 race is the only competitive race this election cycle and pits a political George McFly (Back to the Future), incumbent Jan Jacobus, against a political Mr. Magoo, challenger Ike Yancy. Suffice to say, the District 3 race is not a battle of the Titans, but rather more of a school-boy tussle between two political flyweights. Unfortunately, citizens should not expect a ferocious debate about serious issues that Miltonites care about.
Let me be blunt. Neither candidate deserves the honor and privilege of representing the fine citizens of Milton. Miltonites deserve better . . . much better. However, elections often present voters with suboptimal—and in this case, unsatisfactory–choices. (That is why voters should have the option of “none-of-the-above” on ballots.) And that is the case with the District 3 race. Neither candidate clears the bar for acceptability. However, neither candidate is so unacceptable that I feel compelled to endorse his opponent.
While I cannot endorse either candidate, there is a preferred candidate and that is Jan Jacobus.
Below I will discuss my impressions—good but often bad—of both candidates. I hope my analysis is useful to citizens. However, I would certainly urge voters to attend a candidate meet-and-greet, to visit the candidates’ websites/Facebook pages, and to review each candidate’s campaign finance reports. Following is a link to the Milton Coalition page providing links to each candidate’s website, Facebook page, etc.
Jan Jacobus is the incumbent. He is the George McFly in this race. He is fundamentally a low-energy, passive, go-along-to-get-along council member. He is the weakest member of council . . . an archetypal back-bencher. I believe he only ran for council because the Crooked Creek HOA board (on which he served) decided it always needs a representative on council to protect/advance Crooked Creek’s interests. Perhaps good for Crooked Creek, but potentially adverse to broader community interests. Milton deserves council members that represent all citizens, not a narrow constituency.
In 2021, Jacobus slid onto council without opposition. And to my knowledge, before joining council, he did nothing to engage citizens about their concerns and aspirations. At the time, I criticized Jacobus for this passivity. Unfortunately, his lack of engagement carried over to Jacobus’s tenure on council . . . with one notable and important exception that I will discuss later. Jacobus is not one to make waves. Hestood idly by while Council Members Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore ran amuck in Milton’s city government. This includes the Paul Moore ethics scandal, council intrusion into HOA minutiae, and Milton’s corrupt election design process. Jacobus even voted to eliminate a polling location in his own district. Jacobus was the ONLY council member that remained aligned with Moore and Mohrig until the bitter end: Moore’s withdrawal from the District 2 race and Mohrig’s stinging election defeat. The other four council members (belatedly but thankfully) came to their senses and endorsed challengers Hene and Cranmer. Jacobus said nothing about Mohrig’s bypassing the city manager to direct staff; about Mohrig’s misbehavior in designing Milton’s elections; about Mohrig’s ridiculous hacking claims; or about Mohrig’s trampling a citizen’s basic civil rights when he trespassed on said citizen’s property to conduct an unauthorized investigation. Not a peep. It reminds me of the quote from Edmund Burke: “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.”
So given these troubling negatives, why the preference for Jacobus?
First, there is one important policy issue where Jacobus has (belatedly) taken the lead: the master plan for the Deerfield/Highway 9 area. It took Phil Cranmer’s election to council to motivate Jacobus on this issue, but he has finally risen to the occasion and reportedly is the lead council member on this important initiative. And it is certainly worth noting that Jacobus’s challenger Yancy has been effusive in his praise for the proposed master plan. So there is certainly an argument to be made that, given his leadership role in the Deerfield/Highway 9 master plan, Jacobus probably should be allowed finish his work on this important initiative.
Second, while I typically have a soft spot for challengers/underdogs (and the energy and new ideas they bring), I believe Jacobus’s council experience, particularly when contrasted with Yancy’s cluelessness, is a strength.
Third, Jacobus is a do-no-harm sort of candidate . . . much preferred to a potentially harmful candidate such as Mr. Yancy . . . as I will discuss below.
Now, let’s take a look at Ike Yancy, who is the challenger and underdog. Yancy is the Mr. (J. Quincy) Magoo in the District 3 race. Yancy’s defining characteristic is his cluelessness. I’m not sure why he’s running and I’m not sure he even knows. I’ve examined his NextDoor postings and campaign website/Facebook page and have come to the inescapable conclusion that he suffers from extreme political nearsightedness and lacks the will/means to remedy his political myopia. I’ve never seen him speak at council or even attend council meetings. Even now in the throes of an election campaign, he is not attending council meetings. Troubling, to say the least.
Mr. Yancy’s singular focus is on the Highway 9 widening project. I applaud Mr. Yancy for engaging on this issue. He has been the loudest and most consistent critic of this project . . . and there has been much to criticize, including inadequate city supervision/engagement. However, based on his most recent utterings on the issue, it seems Mr. Yancy is mostly fine with the current design. When you strip back his musings on this issue—some of which are wild exaggerations (e.g., 100s of acres and 1000s of trees lost in Milton)—Mr. Yancy’s platform on Highway 9 boils down to the width of sidewalks. He advocates for 4-foot vs. 8-foot (current design) sidewalks. Highway 9 sidewalk widths seem to be the centerpiece of Yancy’s campaign. It’s a relatively trivial issue that most citizens likely don’t care about. And if they do, I suspect most would disagree with Mr. Yancy.
So why is widening Highway 9 such a big deal for Mr. Yancy? Well, Mr. Yancy lives in a townhome community along Highway 9. This is a personal issue for him. Yancy has been clear in asserting that the Highway 9 project is negatively impacting property values . . . that is, he has a financial stake in this matter. On social media, he has ranted about the road widening project (and perhaps he is correct about its impact on property values). But this gets us to a critical point. If Yancy ascends to council, based on his postings about the financial impact of the Highway 9 project on homeowners like himself, it seems Yancy has a clear (financial) conflict of interest. I believe Mr. Yancy would have to recuse himself when Highway 9 issues come before council. That he does not realize this conflict speaks to his naiveté. Citizens might recall that the Paul Moore ethics scandal consumed city resources and city council attention for over a year. Despite spending $100,000+, Moore was found guilty of 3 ethics violations, including financial conflict-of-interest. Perhaps Mr. Yancy will assert that he will assume the ethics risk and not recuse himself from Highway 9 project matters. However, is it fair or responsible for Yancy to subject council and citizens to yet another drawn-out ethics inquiry that would shame the city and drain government resources and attention? Considering Mr. Moore’s ethics convictions, I am quite sure that Mr. Yancy would not beat an ethics complaint filed against him. And I believe that this time around, he would find little sympathy/support (unlike with Paul Moore) from council or city staff. It strikes me that Yancy would have greater impact on Highway 9 issues continuing as a community advocate than as an elected but ethically recused council member.
One other point regarding Highway 9. Council recently (September 15) approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia Department of Transportation regarding the Highway 9 project. A perfect time for candidate Yancy to show up, address council, and voice his concerns, right? Unfortunately, Mr. Yancy was a no-show. Perhaps, even Mr. Yancy realizes his objections to the Highway 9 improvement project is not his ticket to city council. Mind you, there are other serious issues that Mr. Yancy could run on and win. However, he seems not to be aware of (most of) them. Some of these issues (but not all) involve problems that his ex-council member supporters (like Laura Bentley) would prefer he not broach because of their complicity in creating these problems . . . so perhaps Mr. Yancy finds himself politically hamstrung regarding certain issues.
Enough about Highway 9. I have several other concerns about Mr. Yancy. Like Mr. Jacobus, Mr. Yancy was also a Mohrig supporter, albeit much more strident. That should be a big red flag for voters. Given Yancy’s unwavering support for Mohrig, in the face of so much misconduct by Mohrig, it seems fair to ask whether Yancy would comport himself in a similar fashion? Would he bypass the city manager to direct staff (in violation of the Milton city charter)? Would he conduct unauthorized investigations of citizens that violate the basic civil rights of those citizens? Would Yancy observe Georgia’s open meetings/records laws? Would Yancy countenance committees that operate like Milton’s errant election design committee? Would Yancy lodge ridiculous complaints that waste valuable government resources?
Yet another issue is some of Mr. Yancy’s Nextdoor postings, which not only highlight his lack of situational awareness, but also raise concerns about his judgment and his potential for recklessness.
It is interesting to note that Mr. Yancy invoked his veteran status to criticize Mohrig’s opponent Phil Cranmer for not voting in municipal elections, never mind that Cranmer served on Milton’s Parks and Recreation Committee for 5 years prior to his election to council . . . a much more serious demonstration of civic duty (than voting). Frankly, Mr. Yancy’s post was a cheap shot. For Yancy, Cranmer’s failure to vote was an egregious civic sin that warranted a scathing Nextdoor post, while Mohrig’s trampling of a citizen’s basic civil liberties went uncommented upon. This leads me to question Mr. Yancy’s judgment and/or lack of situational awareness.
A few other Nextdoor postings from Mr. Yancy are even more troubling. In one posting, he posted a link to a salacious political video whose creator is anonymous. The video was a hit piece that was short on facts and long on innuendo. In another posting, Mr. Yancy provided a link to a radical media website that has been judged by non-partisan media fact-check organizations to be highly biased and non-factual. Many of this media site’s story bylines are “staff writers.” Let’s be honest . . . anonymous posters/creators/reporters can say anything; they are not credible. By citing such anonymous sources, Mr. Yancy impugns his own credibility and provides troubling insights into how he gathers and processes information. Such postings do not inspire confidence that Yancy is a person that will dig deep and rely on facts and logic to make decisions on behalf of citizens.
Lastly, I am concerned about Mr. Yancy’s connections to certain former council members, particularly Laura Bentley. In 2023, when Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig exited council, the last of Milton’s political dinosaurs were put to pasture. Good riddance. For 17 years, Milton’s long-warring factions had bickered with each other over nonsense while important citizens’ priorities often languished. The current council has had to repair a lot of damage associated with Bentley-Moore-Mohrigera (2018 – 2023) . . . with additional mending still to accomplish. However, the current council is working well together and increasingly focused on Milton’s future, such as revitalizing the Deerfield/Highway 9 area (Mr. Jacobus’s focus area). A emphasis on the future and citizen prerogatives needs to be maintained and intensified . . . and the ghosts of past councils need to be kept at bay. Given his association with past politicians and his political cluelessness, a real danger exists that Mr. Yancy might (wittingly or unwittingly) provide these former council members an avenue for disrupting a future-leaning, citizen-centric council agenda.
Ordinarily, I am sympathetic to underdogs/challengers (having been one myself for much of my 10 years of involvement in local politics). And council certainly does need a member that will more forcefully challenge the status quo, with a particular emphasis on improving Milton’s governance model (how things get done): more accountability; increased transparency; higher integrity standards; improved competence; and greater fairness. Unfortunately, Mr. Yancy does not strike me as such an agent for change, but rather he seems to be a throw-back to an ugly past that Milton needs to move beyond.
Having said all that, I applaud Mr. Yancy for challenging Mr. Jacobus and forcing him to earn his seat on council. And I congratulate Yancy for his advocacy regarding Highway 9 (although I don’t agree with all his stances). I realize my criticism of Mr. Yancy (and Mr. Jacobus) is harsh. I do not mean to imply Yancy (or Jacobus) are bad people. I suspect both are good fathers, sons, husbands, colleagues, neighbors, and friends. However, Mr. Yancy’s obvious cluelessness combined with the questionable company he is keeping present a real-and-present danger. Unfortunately, it is the case that clueless council members in the clutches of unscrupulous politicians and political activists are easily compromised and often corrupted.The risk for such corruption seems high (and perhaps unacceptable) with Mr. Yancy. Little such risk exists with Mr. Jacobus, who is a mostly do-no-harm, experienced council member who is (belatedly) providing positive leadership of the Deerfield/Highway 9 (re)design initiative. Jacobus seems the better of these two underserving candidates.
Advocating For Good Governance
Tim
Note 1: Readers need to understand that posts like this one require a lot of time and effort. Publishing a blog is not a trivial exercise. It necessitates a big investment to discover facts; to work through the logic; to find the right message; to identify graphics; and to choose the right words. A typical long-form post (like the above post) requires 10+ hours.
As promised, I am providing a web page (without opinion) that is a one-stop shop for campaign and elections information for the 2025 Milton municipal elections. This includes links to various candidate campaign websites, Facebook pages, etc.
Milton’s qualifying period for the 2025 Milton municipal elections ended Friday August 22nd. Three Council seats and the mayorship were contestable. However, only 1 seat will be contested. Challenger Isiah “Ike” Yancy is challenging incumbent Jan Jacobus for District 3/Post 1. Two incumbents, Mayor Peyton Jamison and Juliette Johnson (District 2/Post 1), are running unopposed and will return to council for second terms. Andrea Verhoff opted not to run for re-election to District 1/Post 1 and will be replaced by newcomer Brian Dolan, who is running unopposed.
A hearty thanks to Ike Yancy, who is challenging incumbent Jan Jacobus, for District 3/Post 1. Competitive elections foster much-needed, critical debate about important issues facing the community. (See below note.) Running for council involves a lot of sacrifice. Campaigning is difficult, time-consuming, and costly.
(Photo: Yancy on left; Jacobus on right)
I have no strong impressions of the Yancy-Jacobus race (yet) and am inclined not to get terribly involved (although I might offer some modest and hopefully informative analysis). It is worth noting that I have never had any two-way communications with either Mr. Yancy or Mr. Jacobus. I am familiar with Mr. Jacobus’s record. And I have surveyed Mr. Yancy’s online postings on various government/political topics and have read media reports that cite him. I will keep vigilant and see how the race plays out. I am open to meeting with either candidate and might be willing to allow them to submit a letter to readers pleading their case for election to city council. I wish both candidates the best and may the best candidate win . . . as they usually do in Milton. Stay tuned . . .
Advocating for Good Governance,
Tim
Note: When I first engaged in Milton politics 10 years ago, two election cycles (2013 and 2015) had passed without any competitive races. Voters were so thoroughly dispirited by the middle school antics of Milton’s two long-warring political tribes that no self-respecting citizen was motivated to run for office. However, in 2016-17, citizens finally rebelled against Milton’s arrogant, self-serving political establishment. Beginning with the 2017 elections, Milton has seen 1 or 2 competitive races in each of the past 4 regular elections. Just as important, 4 incumbents (one in each of the past 4 regular elections: 2017 – 23) chose not to run in the face of almost-certain defeat. Such incumbent withdrawals had never previously occurred in Milton. So although these 4 incumbents did not compete in elections, intense debate typical of campaigns did occur in the run-up to qualification that likely persuaded these 4 wayward incumbents not to seek re-election. Moreover, in 2017 and again in 2023, two other long-time incumbents, who would have been wise not to seek re-election, suffered the two worst electoral defeats in Milton history. And despite joining forces in the last election, Milton’s long-warring tribes suffered an ignominious defeat and were finally (and hopefully forever) purged from city council (although a few members—some operating in stealth mode–continue to sow discord). All the credit goes to Milton’s wise and ever-sentient voters. Suffice to say, Milton’s voters have not been shy about throwing the bums out . . . a total of six removals in the past 4 regular election cycles. That’s impressive. (Of course, I am proud of the small role I have played in exposing Milton’s misbehaving politicians.)
Happy Independence Day! Yes, after a hiatus of over a year, I am reactivating the Milton Coalition Blog in the run-up to Milton’s 2025 municipal elections. Minimally, as with the 2021 and 2023 elections, I will post a page that provides useful links (without any commentary) that will allow voters to obtain information on ALL candidates running in the 2025 election for city council and for mayor . . . a one-stop shop for election and candidate information.
I will wait to see how the campaign unfolds to determine how much additional reporting and analysis I provide to blog readers. This is my tenth year of blogging on Milton city politics and government. I am guided my three principles: 1) telling citizens the unvarnished truth, employing only facts and logic, 2) advocating for good governance, especially strict adherence to the rule-of-law, and 3) promoting the prerogatives of citizens (over the priorities of Milton’s ever-lurking special interests). That’s it. It is worth noting that I draw heavily from primary source materials and provide these source materials to my readers (to allow them to draw their own conclusions). I suppose that is why my detractors have never—NOT ONCE—ever written me to dispute anything written at the blog. (Note: My advocacy is self-financed and has cost me over $22,000, not to mention costing me much more in opportunity costs.)
Independence Day is an august occasion for re-activating the blog. Independence Day commemorates the founding of our great nation by the Second Continental Congress. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was ratified, providing the vision for the foundling nation, immortalized by the following words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Rarely have so few words had such great (and global) impact. While familiar to us now, the ideas expressed were fiercely radical and controversial for the time. In fact, England considered such language to be treasonous, and its advocates to be traitors. With the Declaration’s ratification, our Founders were literally risking their lives. With this revolutionary act, these men of privilege, wealth, and learning risked everything to establish a political system squarely founded on liberty. By “inalienable,” the founders meant that our fundamental civil rights preceded and transcended government, whose purpose is to SECURE (i.e., protect) such rights. Furthermore, the “consent of the governed” means that citizens must frequently and substantively provide their on-going consent . . . consent that involves much more than periodic elections, but includes many other mechanisms to solicit and incorporate the will of citizens. This last point is conveniently lost on–or perhaps intentionally disregarded by—many elected and appointed government officials.
What has any of this discussion to do with local government? Everything. It is in local government that we (should) see the most direct and purest expression of the founders’ intentions. In fact, the founders expected most government to occur at the local (and state) levels, where government is closest to the people. Direct and substantive local engagement was desired and even expected. Accordingly, I was surprised—shocked really—to find so much dysfunction in local government. I found that consent of the governed was quite attenuated in Milton. Rather than being wielded for the benefit of Milton’s citizens, power was wielded against citizens. Our First Amendment rights were not being “secured” by our elected representatives, but rather some elected officials aggressively sought to silence and sideline citizens that dared criticize them and their dirty doings. I was a key target (victim?) of their strategy of citizen suppression. In fact, I am Public Enemy Number One for half a dozen former elected officials. However, their many attempts to silence and sideline me have been spectacularly unsuccessful (and often backfired) and only served to embolden me. They have been sidelined, not me. I was bowed, but never broken.
I have abundantly documented many politicians’ affronts to citizens at this blog. For example, you might recall Council Member Mohrig’s unauthorized investigation (in late 2023) of a citizen, where he trespassed on said citizen’s property and took photos. After citizen uproar, the city reluctantly cited Mohrig for trespass . . . a slap on the wrist, considering the violations of said citizen’s Constitutional rights to due process, to protection against unreasonable search, and to privacy. Mohrig (and former council member Paul Moore) also presided over a thoroughly dishonest election design process that denied Mohrig’s district its own polling place . . . so much for election integrity and equal access to the ballot box. (See Note 1 below.) Those are just two examples; the blog documents dozens more examples of rights infringements by Milton’s former elected officials.
And that, my Milton friends, is why Independence Day is so important. We must be ever vigilant that local governments instituted to secure our rights (as intended by the Constitution) do not instead trespass on those rights. In between elections, citizens must frequently ensure municipal government is garnering our consent through citizens’ substantive engagement in local civic affairs. This includes speaking truth to power and exposing elected miscreants that would seek to suppress our fundamental rights.
Wishing You a Wonderful Independence Day,
Tim
Note 1: Mohrig’s many transgressions were such that I lacked the bandwidth to expose his five campaign finance violations (but may yet do so in a future blog post . . . it depends on how the 2025 campaign plays out.)
The investigation into computer hacking allegations by (former) Council Member Rick Mohrig has concluded. See the above screenshot of the final paragraph from the Milton Police’s 13-page investigative report (Case 23-01634). (RP = reporting person.) Not surprisingly, the Milton Police and GBI determined that “Computer Forgery . . . did not occur.” The report further states that the case will be unfounded. The term unfounded has a specific definition in the law. Following is a screenshot of a Law Insider definition of unfounded:
I urge citizens to request Case 23-01634 from the Milton Police department. Following is a link to the City’s website where you can submit an Open Records Request (ORR). I received the report within 24 hours of submission of my ORR. The records request process is super-easy.
The 13-page investigative report is fascinating reading. The Milton police and GBI were clearly thorough in their investigation. No stone was left unturned. The police report provides a clear, detailed, and unequivocal description/analysis of the events/actions surrounding the alleged hacking that should leave no doubt in citizens’ minds that Mr. Mohrig’s allegations of a Computer Forgery were indeed unfounded. Given the lack of ambiguity in the findings, it would seem this case should be turned over to Milton’s prosecutor to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to charge Mohrig with filing a false police report. Minimally, Mr. Mohrig owes Miltonites a heartfelt apology and restitution of all investigatory costs. I shudder to think of all the hard-earned tax monies wasted on chasing computer phantoms. Milton and Georgia taxpayers should be outraged!
Of course, the hacking scandal was only one of many nails in Mohrig’s political coffin. I have documented Mohrig’s many and egregious transgressions in other blog posts. Even worse than the hacking fiasco was Mohrig’s trampling of one citizen’s basic constitutional rights (for example, protection from unreasonable government search) when Mohrig trespassed on that citizen’s property (yet again circumventing city staff) to conduct an unauthorized investigation (including allegedly taking photographs) of said citizen’s property . . . for which Mohrig was only cited for trespassing. Considering he is a government official, (allegedly) identified himself as such, and (allegedly) stated he was conducting an investigation, it seems Mohrig got off far too lightly. Chalk it up to one set of (lower) standards for government officials and much stricter standards for the rest of us lowly citizens.
Thankfully, citizens overwhelmingly booted Mr. Mohrig from office in the most recent municipal elections. Mohrig eked out only 40% of the vote even with support from a de facto alliance of Milton’s two long-warring factions. That’s right . . . former council members Laura Bentley, Bill Lusk, Julie Bailey, and Matt Kunz all lined up behind Rick Mohrig in his bid for re-election. Politics surely does make strange bedfellows. (See note at bottom of this post.).
I had hoped the city would provide me with the GBI’s hacking investigative report and all the case’s supporting materials (like interview transcripts), but it did not. So I will be submitting another ORR to get these documents. Stay tuned . . .
Advocating For Good Governance,
Tim
Note: In 2011, Kunz trounced Bailey. In 2017, Bentley decimated Lusk. However, facing almost certain defeat in their re-election bids, Kunz and Bentley both wisely chose not to seek re-election to third and second terms, respectively.
Attached is a press release issued by the City of Milton. A suspect has been charged with making terroristic threats against the Mayor of Milton and against Georgia’s governor. The press release provides investigative details that I will not repeat here. This arrest is great news for the Milton community. Perhaps, Miltonites can rest a bit easier; however, danger still exists as I will explain later in my post.
The death threats to the Mayor (and his family) have justifiably elicited more concern among most citizens than any other issue I’ve witnessed in Milton. Milton Coalition Blog traffic set records when I first reported this story. My initial blog post on this story was viewed more than 2200 times. Separately, an email alert sent to 2000+ Milton Coalition petition signers elicited a 71+% open rate and 22% click-through rate, with many other readers reaching the blog through search engines. My blog post was also widely shared on social media.
Unfortunately, it is a near-certainty that others—likely Milton citizens–were involved in these death threats. Milton’s press release correctly states that the charged inmate had no motive to make such threats and was likely working at the behest of others. Additionally, the timing, nature, and other elements of the threats strongly suggest a local mastermind with knowledge of local politics.
I was not surprised about the threats. With support from a few (now-former) council members, a small but very loud group of Counterfeit Conservative Crazies (CCCs) has regularly thrown tantrums at council and ranted incessantly on social media. For many months, partisan rancor has plagued Milton, reaching a fever pitch with the approach of the election. My alarm at this corrosive partisanship prompted me to fire up the blog to stand up to the partisan bullies, who clearly do not reflect broader community sentiment. The exposure of misconduct and incompetence (by me and the Milton Herald) in Milton’s election design and planning dealt a fatal blow to their agenda and doomed their council candidate, Rick Mohrig, to certain defeat at the ballot box. Realizing their demise, the crazies further increased their attacks, which included personally targeting me, the Mayor, and others. In my opinion, the death threats were just a logical extension of these attacks. Milton’s toxic partisanship likely incited one or more unstable Miltonites—perhaps one of the crazies themselves–to direct these death threats.
So were Milton’s crazies perhaps chastened or even remotely concerned by the death threats? Actually, quite the opposite. To my knowledge, none has condemned the threats. Rather than expressing concern for the mayor and his family, some of Milton’s crazies whined about the mayor providing me with the threatening texts he received (so that I might use my media platforms to assist police). One of the crazies even conspiratorially asserted that the death threats were manufactured by myself and the Mayor. Real tin-foil hat stuff!
I have also been disappointed that community activists, such as former council members Laura Bentley and Julie Bailey, have been eerily quiet about the death threats. Both have an obligation (if they are truly community advocates) to unequivocally condemn such threats. Both have been quite vocal in the past 6 months about other issues that I contend are less dangerous to the community and to our fundamental rights. (BTW, both also endorsed Rick Mohrig’s re-election to council.) Sadly, as I have learned, Ms. Bentley and Ms. Bailey’s advocacy is mostly driven by politics and not the best interests of the community. Had these death threats been directed at their allies, I am relatively certain that Bentley-Bailey would be screaming bloody murder. Perhaps, my blog will shame them into action on this issue . . . but I doubt it.
There are almost certainly remaining chapters in this story yet to be told. Kudos to the Milton police (and their state and federal partners) for their fine investigative work. The most difficult task–finding and charging a suspect in the calling/texting–has been successful. It strikes me that connecting the charged inmate to a local handler should be relatively easy . . . a matter of tracing the suspect’s communications with local residents.
I am ending this post with a plea for non-partisanship and political sanity. I have long been involved in Milton politics. Based on this experience, I am confident that a large majority of Miltonites are strongly opposed to the dysfunction that we detest in state, national, and county politics and that we see infecting Milton politics. Voter disdain for such divisiveness was evidenced in the most recent municipal elections when partisan candidates were roundly rejected by voters. Party politics have no place in Milton’s municipal government. Milton’s elections are non-partisan by design; no candidate is identified on ballots by party affiliation. More importantly, partisanship does not translate well at the local level; issues in Milton have typically not broken along party lines. However, definitively rejecting partisanship in Milton is going to require average, normal citizens to stand up to the political crazies—on both the extreme right and the extreme left.
Happy New Year! It is time to celebrate a new era in Milton politics . . . a changing of the guard.
At tomorrow’s (January 3rd) City Council, new council members Doug Hene and Phil Cranmer will be sworn in. Current Council Member Carol Cookerly, who won re-election, will also take her oath of office. Good tidings!
I encourage citizens to attend the January 3rd swearing in. Miltonites need to show strong support for the new and improved City Council and, more importantly, support for a return to plain sanity in City government. It is important to send a strong message that Milton is closing the door on 1) the extreme government dysfunction (led by Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig) of the past two years and 2) the harmful factional politics that have plagued Milton for the past 17 years. Let’s briefly discuss each of these topics.
Milton Government Dysfunction. Over the past two years, Milton’s strategic priorities largely languished because of several serious ethics issues; a focus on HOA minutiae; and an ill-conceived, dishonest, and unfair elections design/planning initiative. Former Council Members Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig were at the center of these controversies that severely undermined citizen trust and damaged Milton’s reputation.
Factional Politics. Mohrig and Moore’s misbehavior was a continuation of 17 years of endless factionalism that has roiled the city since its founding. Milton’s two factions were the Bailey-Bentley-Moore faction and the Lusk-Kunz-Mohrig faction. Often, the fighting between these querulous political cliques was positively middle school—the political equivalent of a school cafeteria food fight. Personality politics dominated, while policy priorities often languished and principles of good governance were roundly ignored.
Fortunately, Milton’s voters were fed up with municipal government dysfunction and corrosive political factionalism. In the recent November elections, voters roundly rejected the politics of yesteryear and Milton’s Old Guard. Miltonites overwhelmingly delivered a clear mandate for change. For the first time since its founding, Milton’s two factions will not be represented on City Council. This coup occurred despite Milton’s two long-warring factions joining forces to support Rick Mohrig and newbie Helen Gordon. Rick Mohrig barely managed to garner 40% of the vote. And with Moore and Mohrig’s departures, Milton’s last political dinosaurs have waddled off the council dais.
This merger of factions was predictable and predicted . . . and is more thoroughly covered in previous blog posts. Once they got past their personal dislike for each other, the Bailey-Bentley-Moore and Lusk-Kunz-Mohrig factions easily put aside their differences. In actuality very little substantive differences exist between them. As I learned the hard way, Milton’s two factions diverge little in their policy positions and certainly employ the same bush-league political tactics (e.g., abuse of various local and state ethics processes).
Milton’s factions correctly calculated they were so weakened that their only chance to retain power was to combine forces. In desperation, Milton’s factions also appealed to naked partisanship, forming an unholy alliance with Milton’s Lunatic Fringe. We have seen the dire consequences of encouraging these fanatics with a troubling coarsening of politics in Milton . . . for example, hyper-partisans disrupting candidate meet-and-greets; Bill Lusk’s shameful marring of Milton’s Veterans’ Day commemoration; and even death threats to the Mayor, which these conspiratorial extremists cavalierly dismiss as a hoax.
Unfortunately, Milton has likely not heard the last from Milton’s political reactionaries. In between the November election and their last council meeting (where they were awarded their participation trophies), Moore and Mohrig engaged in some political maneuvering that seems intended to sow future chaos at council and perhaps provide openings for a return to power. However, their petty parting acts assume that citizens can be duped by thinly veiled traps designed to trip up their successors on council. Fortunately, Milton’s voters are not so easily conned. Presented with cold facts and irrefutable logic, Miltonites have consistently demonstrated their capacity for detecting political BSand firing the rascals. . . a lesson Milton’s Old Guard never learned . . . hence their demise.
Please consider attending January 3rd’s City Council swearing-in of council members. Please encourage friends and neighbors to also attend. Let’s send a clear message of support for the new city council. Let’s voice strong hopes for a brighter future for Milton . . . a Milton free of factionalism and partisanship . . . a Milton where the rule of law is upheld and the focus is on citizens’ highest (i.e., strategic) priorities.
Rick Mohrig and Helen Gordon were soundly routed in Milton’s recent municipal elections. However, you must wonder if their margins of defeat might have been evenlarger if Milton’s election design was not so biased against District 3 voters. Conversely, you must wonder if the margin of defeat might have been smaller if council members Mohrig, Moore, and Jacobus had succeeded in denying District 3 voters a day-of polling place. Consider two statistics:
2 out of 3 of the (17) early voting days when District 3 votes comprised the highest proportion of total votes cast were Saturdays.
District 3 had the lowest proportion of early votes (to total votes) at 46.5% (vs. 63.6% for District 1).
I will return to these statistics later, and hopefully Milton will conduct detailed analysis of the 2023 election statistics as it considers whether Milton should continue to conduct its municipal elections . . . and if so, what changes should be made.
Let me begin by stating that I am a staunch—but more importantly, principled—Conservative. Real Conservatives despise a rigged game . . . unlike counterfeit conservatives. Milton’s counterfeit conservatives regularly rant and rave about election integrity but continue to defend an indefensible election design and planning process that was riddled with dishonesty and lack of transparency . . . with predictable results . . . an unfair election design intended to advantage their counterfeit conservative candidates. Real Conservatives care about maximizing liberty, which means ensuring equal opportunities (and rights) for all citizens . . . most especially equal opportunity at the ballot box. If we err in one direction or another, we should err in providing more opportunity to the least advantaged in society . . . that is compassionate Conservatism. Conversely, counterfeit conservatives are motivated to create and/or perpetuate unequal opportunities for their constituencies with the aim of achieving and/or maintaining unfair advantage . . . for example, biased election designs that favor their candidates. To hell with the less fortunate in our society . . . “let them eat cake” (Marie Antoinette).
Let’s begin with a few reasonable premises. District 3 is where Milton’s least well-off voters live. All of Milton’s apartment housing is located here, along with many/most of Milton’s starter homes. District 3 is the area where two-earner and single-parent families are concentrated: first responders, teachers, nurses, tradespeople, etc. These are families who have the least time to vote . . . and for whom Milton needs to make voting easiest (or equally easy) . . . but for whom Milton has made voting most difficult. These are voters that the let-them-eat-cake Real Housewives of Milton—that regularly rant at council–don’t understand or care about.
These District 3 residents are voters that probably most took advantage of Fulton County’s early voting outside of Milton . . . voting close to their work where they could vote on their lunch hour or on their way to/from work. These are voters who previously also early voted in heavy numbers in Alpharetta, which is convenient (to SE Milton) . . . again on their way to/from work . . . or as a part of their weekend routine. These are voters that most take advantage of Sunday early voting, which Milton eliminated. (Note: When Fulton County ran Milton’s municipal elections, 40% of early voting occurred outside Milton . . . with 75% of the 40% occurring in Alpharetta.)
And let’s be honest. District 3 is where Milton’s Democrats and black & brown voters are concentrated. If the intent was to appeal to voters based on party affiliation, then you certainly want to make it difficult for District 3 voters to vote. And as we know, Mohrig’s campaign was hyper-partisan (although important issues in Milton never break along party lines). Mohrig’s counterfeit conservative canvassers touted Mohrig as “the Republican candidate” and labeled Cranmer as “the Democrat candidate.” Mohrig was promoted at an extremist right-wing media site . . . where he even participated in a video interview. And let’s truthfully talk about racial/ethnic intolerance. Even if the election design intent was not discriminatory, the outcome—reducing the black and brown vote—was clearly discriminatory . . . and therefore the design was inherently discriminatory. This is common-sense logic, except with the counterfeit conservative fringe element
So given those premises, how might one quash the opposition vote concentrated in District 3? Easy . . . make it more difficult for District 3 citizens to vote. By what means?
Eliminate their option to early vote anywhere but in Milton and create a single early voting location that is as inconvenient as possible. And that is exactly what happened. The Milton City Hall early location makes no sense considering Milton’s traffic patterns, which would strongly suggest District 3 as the most convenient early voting location for the largest number of potential voters.
Reduce early voting days/hours. Originally, the election feasibility committee suggested mirroring Fulton County’s days/hours . . . a total of 206 hours it was (incorrectly) calculated. However, early voting days/hours were reduced. Sunday voting was eliminated, and the eventual early voting hours totaled only 149. And of course, it was made confusing by creating inconsistent voting hours that varied from day-to-day and did not mirror Fulton County’s hours that citizens were accustomed to.
Make all the voting locations completely different from Fulton County’s voting locations . . . sow a lot of confusion particularly in District 3’s younger and newer voters that haven’t acclimated to the pattern of different odd- and even-year voting . . . perhaps they’ll give up. Of course, a complex voting scheme makes it difficult for two-earner/single-parent families who have limited time to vote . . . what with picking up the kids from daycare, making dinner at home, etc.
Deny District 3 voters a day-of voting location. Let’s add insult to injury. Why stop at making it most difficult for District 3 voters to early vote? Let’s make day-of voting also most difficult for these voters? And this almost happened, except for a popular revolt from average Milton citizens catalyzed by this blog (and the Milton Herald’s excellent reporting) that caused council to backtrack and add a third polling location in District 3.
In a nutshell, Milton’s election design created a confusing voting maze for District 3 voters. More complexity and more hurdles mean fewer votes. First, cut off the most convenient methods of early voting and then make it as inconvenient to early vote as possible, by sending District 3 voters clear across Milton to an area many have never ventured . . . and create inconsistent, unfamiliar, and reduced early voting days/hours. And then on election day, again deny these District 3 voters a convenient polling place, by again sending them to unfamiliar areas of Milton where they must fight rush-hour traffic before/after work. (Fortunately, this second design element was eliminated due to overwhelming public pressure.)
Milton’s election design begs the question: how many District 3 voters did not vote because Milton made voting more difficult for them? The above statistics provide a clue. District 3 voters voted in higher proportions on Saturdays . . . clearly Sunday voting (and longer/more consistent voting hours) would have meant proportionately more District 3 votes. And District 3’s vs. District 1’s early voting compared to each district’s day-of voting strongly indicates that convenience is a critical factor . . . there was a 17+% difference between these two districts, with early votes respectively comprising only 46.5% of total District 3 votes vs. 63.6% of total District 1 votes.
Fortunately, Milton’s always-sentient voters saw through the unfair election design and voted decidedly against Mohrig and Gordon. And clearly the outcome would have been more lopsided but for Milton’s biased election design. In part, Milton’s election was a referendum on Milton’s election design. Hopefully, Milton’s new city council understands and considers this clarion message from its voters in its future decision-making about elections. We can only hope . . .
Advocating For Equal Voting Opportunity For ALL Citizens,
Tim
Note 1: This analysis was applied to Milton’s three precincts, which roughly correspond to (but do not exactly mirror) Milton’s three Districts.
Note 2: Some design elements discussed above were clearly deliberate; however, others may have been inadvertent . . . chalk it up to incompetence . . . but nevertheless these elements had the effect of reducing District 3 voting and must be analyzed/revised.
Note 3: I had intended to provide a more detailed and comprehensive analysis of the 2023 election. However, given other priorities discussed in my previous post, I won’t be publishing such an analysis anytime soon. 🙂
The purpose of this post is to(eventually)discuss the future direction of the Milton Coalition Blog. But first, thanks to my many readers. I appreciate your trust, confidence, and respect . . . that is what has kept me blogging and advocating for citizens. Thank you!
Because of you, the MC Blog is more successful than ever. I have the most ever email subscribers. Adding a few subscribers here and there over 7+ years translates to a lot of readers. More importantly, the number of non-subscribers coming directly to the blog has spiked . . . more than doubling previous highs set in run-up to the 2017 election. Since July 1st, the MC Blog has received around 14,500 views. If blog post email opens are added, the number of views climbs to nearly 25,000 total views in the past 4+ months. Election day alone saw 624 views of the blog, as voters sought candidate information. This election season, I also sent three emails to my list of petition signers.Open rates and click-through rates were stratospheric . . . in one case, nearly 72% and 22%, respectively. I am humbled by this high level of engagement and trust. Thank you.
Please understand that I also have my detractors . . . and some of them are vicious. They have tried mightily to impugn my credibility and to smear me, but their cheap shots have done no harm but rather steeled my determination. Their middle school name-calling and bush-league tactics have only increased the power of the blog. Each time they mention my blog or my name, blog viewership trends upwards. (I think they have finally realized this, so now just refer to me as TheAlpharetta Blogger.) These detractors often complain that my blog disseminates “disinformation,” “misinformation,” “false narratives,” etc. However, NOT once have they written to me to dispute a single fact, despite multiple invitations to do so. Neither has Council Member Rick Mohrig, who incessantly whines about “lies,” ever reached out. This silence speaks for itself.
My eight-year political journey has often been arduous and sometimes lonely. I have invested over $15,000 and 3,000+ hours in my good governance efforts. I have posted 2 petitions, spoken over 100 times before Milton City Council, and published around 370 blog posts. I supported Laura Bentley’s bid for council in 2017. I believe my support was dispositive in her election. However, once in office, Bentley quickly turned her back on her supporters. We weren’t needed anymore. Bentley betrayed her hardline zoning stances to support the granting of 28 variances at Birmingham Crossroads. Worse, while in office, Bentley employed the same political tactics she had criticized in her 2017 opponent. Belatedly, I realized there was not a dime’s worth of difference between Bentley and her predecessor Bill Lusk. Most troubling, Bentley did not deliver on her campaign commitments—especially her promise to shift power to citizens. Sadly, Laura became just another dissembling politician.
My endorsement of Bentley hurt the Milton Coalition brand and for several years, I was exiled to a sort of political wilderness. However, I continued to engage when I sensed opportunities to regain citizen trust. I stuck to my principles, believing that when citizens were presented with the facts and with logic, they would continue to seek out the blog . . . and my brand would be restored stronger than ever . . . and it has been. And I had confidence that, untethered from ethics and sound advice, Bentley and Moore would ultimately commit self-destruction that I would catalyze by exposing their misdeeds . . . and self-destruct they did and in quite dramatic fashion. Please understand that my goal was not revenge, but rather redemption (for myself). Thankfully, my faith in Miltonites (to see through the thick fog of dishonesty and distraction) was confirmed in your unwavering support and more importantly in your sage voting at election time.
My endorsement of Bentley was my biggest blunder, but also led me to my most important insight about Milton’s politics . . . that huge damage was being done to good governance because of factionalism in Milton. My goal became defeating this factionalism and convincing citizens to leave behind the destructive politics of the past. Since the founding of the city, two factions have been battling each other for supremacy: the Bailey-Bentley-Moore faction and the Lusk-Kunz-Mohrig faction. In truth, these political cliques differ little in their policy positions and neither cares much about principled governance. Often, their disputes were positively juvenile and got so bad at one point that an organizational psychologist was engaged . . . but to no avail. Policy and principles took a back seat to personality politics, with both sides competing to be the coolest kids in city government. Citizens were the losers. However, with the 2023 elections, these fractious factions have finally been exorcised from city government. By the 2023 campaign, Milton’s two political sects found themselves so weakened that they loosely allied to jointly promote Mohrig, enlisting the aid of Milton’s Lunatic Fringe. Nevertheless, they could barely muster 40% of votes for Mohrig . . . a testament not only to their impotence but also to the wisdom of Milton’s voters. Citizens have chosen a new path that leaves behind Milton’s long-damaging sectarian politics and its more recent spasm of hyper-partisanship to focus on a better and less fractious future for Milton. I am pleased about the small role I played in the demise of Milton’s two political factions. Good riddance!
My political journey has also been an intensely personal journey. While sometimes difficult, traveling the political high road has been also enlightening. I have learned a lot about myself and my fellow humans. I have made many lifelong friendships. My political sojourn has increased my self-awareness and made me a better person. My faith in principled leadership has been fortified. I have made some mistakes, but I have no regrets. Mistakes are inevitable. What is important is to admit those mistakes, to learn from them, and to soldier on. That is why I continued my advocacy in the wake of my misjudgments about Bentley (and Moore) and the resulting damage to my reputation and the Milton Coalition brand.
This brings me to my purpose with this post. Although now living in Alpharetta, I had unfinished business in Milton. That business is concluded. I have been instrumental in defeating both of Milton’s long-warring factions. Six of Milton’s factional candidates (Mohrig, Bentley, Lusk, Moore, Thurman, and Kunz) have been defeated outright or wisely chosen not to run in the face of certain defeat. A few other candidates put up by one faction or the other have been defeated. The Lunatic Fringe has been largely neutered. With Moore and Mohrig gone, their venom has no outlet . . . Milton’s radicals have been defanged . . . only their loud, annoying, but harmless, hissing remains.
My work is done. I have achieved the redemption that I sought.Other priorities call. Family, friends, work . . . and my health. A week from now, I undergo open heart surgery. Accordingly, I will focus on recovery and not Milton politics . . . and not the blog. And when I return, I will blog at a much lower volume. And my focus will shift to 1)politicallessons learned and 2) profiling Milton businesses, community service organizations, and difference-making Milton citizens. If I absolutely must re-direct my blog to Milton politics, I will. However, I am confident that Milton’s current council will get back to the business of the people and to Milton’s strategic objectives. I believe that 2023 was likely my last Milton election. I am happy to advise others, including council members, on politics and governance . . . if they seek me out. However, I believe my destiny lies elsewhere and my role in Milton will recede . . . that is my wish . . . we’ll see. My hope is that other ordinary citizens will take up the mantle of good governance.
In closing, thanks again to my many readers. Thanks for your trust, confidence, and respect. It is more appreciated than you realize . . . it has been sustaining.
Advocating (as always) For Clean, Competent, Courageous, and Citizen-centric Government,
Tim
Note: Time permitting before my surgery, I still plan to publish a post “Reflections on Elections.”
Milton Coalition 