Author: Milton Coalition

The Milton Coalition is a non-partisan entity advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric government.
Uncategorized

Lusk in His Own Words and My Rebuttal

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Citizens:

Mr. Lusk is circulating a rebuttal to claims that I have made regarding his voting record and his conduct as a Council Member.  He is correct in that I have made all 13 assertions, and I stick by all 13.  Below, I have included Mr. Lusk’s rebuttals in their entirety.  My counter-rebuttal is in red.  I also urge readers to peruse my blog posts over the last 2 years.  I have covered most of these topics in detail.  Not once has Mr. Lusk, who is obviously a regular reader of my blog, ever contacted me to dispute either my facts or my findings.

  1. Claim: Lusk voted against the Comprehensive Plan

To be clear, there are two Comprehensive Plans. I supported one for good reason and did not support the other.  (meaning he voted against it.)

  • In August 2011 I voted with a unanimous Council to support the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. It was a good plan. My opponent campaigned against it. She did not use the actual language of the Comprehensive Plan.  I don’t think she actually read the entire 110 page document. If you’d like to read it, here is the link:  https://www.cityofmiltonga.us/lib/file/manager/Comp_Plan_Final.pdf
  • The 2035 Comprehensive Plan had some serious problems. It was too ambiguous and took away individual rights. My opponent supported the 2035 plan. These arguments were never made by Mr. Lusk during the city council hearings.  Watch the video at the City website.

If we are to have an honest discussion, let’s talk about the differences between the two plans and stop throwing darts.

Wrong.  There is only 1 Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP).  The CLUP is updated every 5 years. The current CLUP was approved in October, 2016 and replaced the 2011 plan.  Only Lusk and Kunz voted against the 2016 CLUP.  The reason they cited was that the CSO was not included . . . the same CSO that citizens overwhelmingly opposed and which Lusk never mentions anymore.  The CLUP was written and unanimously approved by a 17-member committee that channeled the desires of citizens expressed at workshops and other meetings.  The drafting of the CLUP followed a rigorous process that encompassed nearly a year and was facilitated by consultants.  The Planning Commission approved the CLUP 7 to nothing.  If you do not believe me (that there is only 1 CLUP), then call the Community Development department at City Hall and talk to Cathy Field or Robyn McDonald.

  1. Claim: Lusk promoted the so-called conservation subdivision ordinance

I supported the 2030 Comprehensive Plan which the Council unanimously approved in August 2011which stipulated that the city should consider using conservation design to achieve our objectives.

  • When Councilman Bert Hewitt introduced the motion in August 2011, he actually asked to strengthen the language regarding conservation design.
  • I agreed that it was a tool that the city could use to avoid AG1 sprawl.
  • My opponent opposed the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in spite of the wishes of the Council. Even worse, she maintained that the conservation design was not in the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. This is false.  Watch the video. 

 I see this as an issue of integrity. We must have honest discussions about all the tools available to us. Platitudes and misstatements are not the answer.

The 2011 CLUP only specified that the City CONSIDER Conservation Subdivisions.  The City did and rejected them as unworkable for Milton.  All conservation subdivision language was expunged from the CLUP by the 17-member Comprehensive Plan Advisory Committee.  That is why Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz voted against the CLUP.

  1. Claim: Lusk voted 4 times to extend sewer in Milton

Sewer has been a divisive issue in Milton since the beginning. Some people believe that new sewers lead to overdevelopment, while others believe that sewers are more efficient and effective than individual septic tanks. Constitutional issues also come into play.

  • This issue was basically resolved during the last election and the worst-case scenarios are behind us.  (How was it resolved?)
  • If we constantly deny a property owner the right to decide whether to have sewer or septic, a landowner will still have the right to sell his or her property to someone who might make the situation worse or the landowner might take the city to court.
  • We will continue to make good decisions regarding land-use, so that what goes above the ground is within the vision of a Comprehensive Plan.

Lusk’s gives a non-answer . . . a series of non sequiturs. 

We have a sewer map that shows where sewer can go and cannot go.  A lot of work went into developing the sewer map; it should be followed.  This is not complicated.  Each time sewer was extended, it was to allow higher density housing; that is a fact.

  1. Claim: Lusk has voted three times for zonings that resulted in higher density

When I assumed office, I promised that I would protect the rights of all Milton citizens.

The Ebenezer Road development is one example where rights became an issue, whether 31 or 48 homes would be built on that parcel. The landowners had rights for 48 homes, and they will be close to that number when it’s built out.  (Empirically not true.)

  • My vote was based on my promise to defend Milton’s 2030 Comprehensive Plan to preserve greenspace. The idea was supported by the Fulton County Health Department, the city staff, and two independent licensed engineers
  • The Ebenezer property would have preserved 35 acres of greenspace, two miles of walking trails, sold 700K+ homes, and would have been the first subdivision that would have added a horse pasture in Milton unlike all the AG1 properties that take them away.
  • Unfortunately, the equestrian pasture that I fought to defend will be developed to more AG1 homes.
  • If you want to read the 2030 Comprehensive Plan, here’s the link: https://www.cityofmiltonga.us/lib/file/manager/Comp_Plan_Final.pdf

Brightwater homes bought the most attractive 38 acres and is building 21 homes on it.  It is doubtful that the remaining land (which is less attractive or unbuildable) will support more than 9 more homes and who knows when that will happen.  So <30 homes will be built where 55 were originally proposed (and 48 were sought by Mr. Lusk).

Much of Brightwater’s “greenspace” was unbuildable and 14 acres were going to have septic drip lines.  And Mr. Lusk makes no mention of the HOA operated/maintained community septic system–aka community septic. 

NINETY PERCENT of Ebenezer Road residents opposed the development; yet Mr. Lusk still wanted to cram it down their throats.  Will he do the same to Wood Road residents one day?  Or neighbors near a future rezoning that he votes to approve.

The property across from Cambridge High School, was another fractious issue. Few people know the history of the property.

  • The property was supposed to be a church, with far less traffic, and far less use.  Because that was denied, the developer explored other options. I would have preferred a church, as it was initially proposed, but the City Council voted 5-2 for a compromise for transitional housing.

The church story is a red herring.  The land was zoned AG-1, meaning it should have been built out with 7-8 homes.  Plain and simple.  Instead, 27 townhouses are going to be built . . . more than 3 times the density under AG-1 zoning.

A third issue involved rezoning of a property on Hopewell Road.

  • The property was originally zoned for low density housing. My opponent continues to hide from this fact. See the 2030 Comprehensive Plan in the 2030 Future Land Use Map: https://www.cityofmiltonga.us/lib/file/manager/Comp_Plan_Final.pdf
  • A Sewer main runs directly through the property. 
  • A developer was prepared to challenge that zoning in court.

The best solution was a compromise because a court could have decided in favor of a far higher density. I could not let that happen in the city of Milton.

Again, the property was zoned AG-1 and should have been built with 1+acre lots.  End of story.  Milton’s sewer map was violated; in fact, a second vote was needed to extend sewer.  Do you know how many times the City has been sued by a developer that won?  ZERO times.  This is a tired and disingenuous response that is always used by Lusk, etc. to justify their votes for higher density.  Developers ALWAYS THREATEN TO SUE.  Let the developer sue!  Let’s defend AG-1.

  1. Claim: Lusk promoted the Ebenezer property which is a violation of his oath of office (Well, actually I stated that his promotion of the rezoning was a violation of his duty of judicial impartiality, as a rezoning is a quasi-judicial matter.)

This is a false and misleading claim. I did not “promote” the project.

  • The Ebenezer project was based on “conservation design,” one of the tools included in our 2030 Comprehensive Plan. That plan referenced conservation design 8 times.

My opponent apparently does not know this, but the people behind her candidacy surely do and choose to not tell the truth.  When I vote to do something, I give my word, and I tell the truth.  I talk to people and listen. I research. And then I make a decision in the best interest of the city, not for a selected few.

This is a blatant lie.  Lusk co-led tours of the property.  On the night of the second hearing, the Ebenezer proponents put out the word to wear green shirts, which both Lusk and Kunz wore.  I met with Lusk shortly before the 1st Ebenezer meeting and he offered to broker a meeting between me and the developer!  There are Facebook postings, etc. of Lusk and Kunz promoting the Ebenezer development.  Ask the residents of Ebenezer Road whether Lusk and Kunz were promoting Brightwater’s project.  Or watch the meeting video.

  1. Claim: Lusk routinely lashes out at citizen critics

This claim is a Saul Alinsky tactic to ridicule just for the sake of divisiveness. (Alinsky wrote the book Rules for Radicals). It is an attempt to intimidate and silence elected officials.

  • If anybody has a question about where I stand, they can meet with me and we can talk, something I’ve done with citizens many times in my 11 years on the Council.
  • This charge comes from one disgruntled individual who spends an inordinate amount of time lashing out at fellow citizens.  Plus, this individual publicly disclosed that he’s under an ethics investigation by the state of Georgia.
  • When citizens hear these claims, they should consider the source. 

Watch the videos at the Milton Coalition blog.  In fact, many citizens have witnessed these attacks from the dais.  

I disclosed that a complaint was lodged against me, after citizens told me that Lusk, Kunz, and Thurman were telling citizens that I was “under investigation.”  The complaint is false and frivolous and I expect it to be dismissed in the near future.  A complaint was lodged, I responded, and the ethics committee staff are making a determination whether or not to dismiss the complaint.

I have never lashed out at individual citizens.  Mr. Lusk often makes assertions with no proof.  I provide proof at my blog of any assertions I make, including video.  I challenge Mr. Lusk to provide 1 instance where “I lashed out at fellow citizens.”

  1. Claim: Lusk was the chief accomplice in the redistricting of District 1

This charge is a fabrication. Every member on Council, including the Mayor, knew the redistricting was happening and that is was consistent with State law.  Not a single member voiced any concern with it.

This charge is nothing more than a political attempt to influence the elections. That could be why the individual who makes this claim is under an ethics investigation by the state of Georgia. 

Council members were only made aware of the change as a bill was about to be introduced into the Georgia Assembly.  Citizens were never notified of the change or give a chance for input.  Thurman requested letters of support from Council AFTER the bill was introduced; ONLY Lusk provided a letter.  Lusk’s support of the change kept Thurman from running against him and kept a Lusk ally on Council.

  1. Claim: Lusk and Kunz engage in private conversations during Council meetings

The issue here is my challenge of the Mayor for his practice of texting during City Council meetings. Texting during Public meetings is a violation of the State Open Meetings Act.  The charge comes from an individual who supported the mayor’s texting and seeks to distort the real issue which is that City Council members should not exchange texts with advisors in the audience and elsewhere during discussion of issues that will be voted on during the meeting.

Texting is NOT a violation of the State Open Meeting Act.  The State Attorney General has been very clear about this.  And texts are always subject to open records requests.  However, Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz routinely engage in conversations about strategy that are not heard by the public.  And unlike texts, there are no records of these conversations.  Several Council members, including Mr. Lusk, also use private and personal email to conduct City business, which is not transparent (although not against the law—similar to texting).  Having said that, I do have concerns about texting in Council meetings, particularly zoning hearings.

  1. Claim: Lusk successfully lobbied to reinstate a subdivision plat that had been rejected by Council

The fact here is the subdivision plat was required to come before Council for ratification. While the Council initially rejected the plat due to some legal confusion, the staff brought it back because those legal concerns needed to be understood and reconsidered. There was no lobbying involved. When you govern, you have to consider all aspects of the law. That was done in this instance.

Wrong.  Staff did not bring it back.  Mr. Lusk specifically requested that the subdivision platting be put back on the council agenda.  And I have an email from the city government stating this.  A developer essentially got a second day in court–a developer who is a friend and political patron of Mr. Lusk’s.

  1. Claim: Lusk routinely circumvents the city manager

This is silly.  I don’t circumvent anybody. Just ask the City Manager.

Mr. Lusk is constantly involved in the day-to-day operations of the city.  Many citizens have been witness to his meeting one-on-one with staff, without the participation of the City Manager. 

  1. Claim: Lusk recently attempted to throw city Council elections into disarray

This absurd charge concerns one city council member who failed to file his election qualifying paperwork on time. As a result, we had to have special council meeting to extend the election process. I voted for that extension, but I believe the difficulty could have been avoided.  Qualifying ended two days after it should have, but it’s done now.

Watch the video at the Milton Coalition blog.  Mr. Lusk and Mr. Kunz trash Joe Longoria, who cannot speak because he is recused.  Mr. Lusk argues against the extension.  When he realizes that he does not have the votes, Mr. Lusk tries to disqualify Mr. Mohrig from voting.  Watch the video.  Mr. Lusk also tried to recruit candidates to run against Mr. Longoria.  Mr. Lusk voted for the extension only after he realized he did not have the votes to stop it.

  1. Claim: Lusk asserts that development of Milton should be entrusted to developers

This is an outright lie. I supported the 2030 Comprehensive Plan that, through conservation design, would allow citizens to determine where homes ought to go in every subdivision. Current AG1 housing gives citizens no right to decide where homes should go. My opponent doesn’t want you to have that right.

  • Since our city’s inception, over 53 AG1 subdivisions have sprawled throughout the Milton landscape, eating away at our horse pastures and rural character.
  • Unless your Council deals with AG1, citizens will continue to have no say where future homes will go.

My opponent continues to advocate for more AG1 housing subdivisions.

Watch the two 2-minute videos at my blog where Lusk states “leave it to the professionals”, let’s not put any additional “hurdles” in the way of developers, “we have pretty good control” over development, etc.  Lusk is hoping you will not watch the videos at the Milton Coalition website.  The title of the post is “Must-See Video:  Mr. Lusk’s Views on Development in His Own Words”

  1. Claim: Lusk has promoted residential community septic

Our laws have allowed community septic. We have it already in our city in some places. It is a technology that could help us achieve the goals of our 2030 Comprehensive Plan and stop AG1 sprawl.

  • My opponent doesn’t have a plan to stop AG1 sprawl which is a major threat to what’s left of our rural character.
  • I seek to utilize all the technology and other tools available to protect and preserve our rural character. 

Community septic is private sewer.  Think about the issues associated with an HOA operating and maintaining a sewer system.  This technology is not proven and has had many problems, including at The Manor.  Forsyth County had issues with community septic and banned it.

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017, Mayoral Candidate Rencher

Rencher Joins Lusk In Misusing Assets of Tax-exempt Charity For Political Purposes . . .

Posted on by Milton Coalition

 . . . Preserve Rural Milton’s Tax Exempt Status Has Been Revoked.

Rencher Positive Campaign Statement
Excerpt From Laura Rencher’s campaign website

After pledging to run a positive campaign (see above excerpt from Ms. Rencher’s campaign website), in the closing days of the election, mayoral candidate Laura Rencher has launched a massive personal attack on Mayor Joe Lockwood.  Ms. Rencher has made  several negative allegations about Mr. Lockwood, including some allegations relating to the IRS.  It is a desperation move.

You see, Ms. Rencher’s campaign has been stuck in neutral since it started.  Wisely, Mr. Lockwood has mostly ignored Ms. Rencher.  I have also mostly ignored Ms. Rencher at this blog, which drives Ms. Rencher and her small, unmerry band of followers crazy.  They endlessly and incoherently rant and rave in a mostly empty room.  To acknowledge Ms. Rencher is to undeservedly elevate and dignify her.  I hope Mayor Lockwood will continue on the high road and ignore Ms. Rencher.  However, Ms. Rencher’s hypocrisy in making IRS allegations compels me to respond.  You see, Ms. Rencher has IRS issues of her own.  She lives in the proverbial glass house . . . in her case, a virtual Biltmore mansion of a glass house.  Oh, where to begin . . .

. . . perhaps at the beginning.  Ms. Rencher co-founded an educational charity named Preserve Rural Milton (PRM).  That’s right . . . an educational charity.  Confused because PRM is clearly a political advocacy/lobbying group?  Confused because a tax-exempt organization is not supposed to engage in political lobbying, which is what PRM mostly does?  Did you give money to PRM under the false pretense that it was going toward educating citizens about land conservation?  Following are excerpts from PRM’s IRS application for tax-exempt status designating PRM as an educational charity.

Rencher Application for Tax Exempt Status
Excerpt from PRM application for tax-exempt status – designation as Educational Charity

And later in her application, Ms. Rencher affirms that PRM will not attempt to influence legislation.  Of course, for the last 2+ years, PRM’s primary focus has been on political advocacy.  This includes attempting to influence legislation—for example, PRM’s emails, Facebook postings, and petition advocating for passage of the so-called “Conservation” Subdivision Ordinance, or CSO.  The IRS website states that a tax exempt organization:  “may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities.”  The IRS website further states:

“An organization will be regarded as attempting to influence legislation if it contacts, or urges the public to contact, members or employees of a legislative body for the purpose of proposing, supporting, or opposing legislation, or if the organization advocates the adoption or rejection of legislation.”

Following are the conditions agreed to by Ms. Rencher to obtain tax-exempt status.  Note the language relating to perjury in the signature section.

Rencher Declaration Not to Lobby
Excerpt from PRM’s application for tax-exempt status:  Conditions For Approval

And Ms. Rencher also seems to have violated the IRS’s stipulation that tax-exempt organizations “not further non-exempt purposes (such as purposes that benefit private interests) more than insubstantially.”  The IRS website states that a tax-exempt organization “must not be organized or operated for the benefit of private interests, such as the creator or the creator’s family, shareholders of the organization, other designated individuals, or persons controlled directly or indirectly by such private interests.”  Following is the stipulation, agreed to by Ms. Rencher, in her application for tax-exempt status:

PRM Pledge To Not Benefit private interests
Excerpt from PRM application for tax-exempt status – personal enrichment condition

Preserve Rural Milton has advocated that the City of Milton acquire land adjoining the property where PRM’s President (Laura Rencher) lives.  PRM has proposed that this property be converted to a passive-use park.  PRM has developed and published (at PRM’s Facebook page) a plan for this park.  The President of PRM, Ms. Rencher, would almost certainly benefit financially from such a park being established next to her property (vs. construction of a subdivision, for example).  Following is a post from PRM’s Facebook page advocating for establishment of the park next to her property.

 

PRM Advocating For purchase of Adjoining Land
PRM Facebook posting (one of several) advocating for acquisition of land adjoining Laura Rencher’s property

Finally, it should be noted that PRM’s tax-exempt status has been revoked because PRM has not filed the required annual forms for 3 consecutive years.  This revocation occurred on May 15, 2017.  Following is a screen shot from the IRS’s website:

PRM Revocation of Tax Exempt Status
Revocation of PRM’s tax-exempt status – from IRS EO Select Check web page

So it is fair to say that Ms. Rencher and PRM are in deep kimchi with the IRS.  And talk about lack of transparency . . . there are no annual forms for the public to inspect, which is a requirement for tax-exempt status.  And the lack of reporting begs the question of how PRM has used the funds that it has raised.

(Note:  PRM has taken down both its website and its Facebook page.  However, I have extensive screenshots of both for public inspection.)

And it is interesting to note that both Ms. Rencher and her running mate Bill Lusk have misused the assets of tax-exempt charities to further their political aims.  Not only have they run afoul of IRS rules for charities, Rencher-Lusk have also violated the public trust.  They are 2 peas in pod.  Citizens, we can do better than Rencher-Lusk . . . Vote Lockwood-Bentley!  Vote for Integrity and Good Governance!

Advocating For Clean Government,

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017, Property Tax Revolt

Mr. Lusk’s Tall Tales on Taxes Unravel . . . Commissioner Rejects Fulton Tax Digest

Posted on by Milton Coalition
3rd Lusk Mailer - Front - 2
Excerpt From Latest Lusk Mailer

October 30, 2017

Bill Lusk probably regrets his latest mailer.  It is yet another Whoops moment for Mr. Lusk.  The mailer shows Lusk with Lynn Riley, the Georgia State Revenue Commissioner, who just a few days ago became Fulton County’s most unpopular government official.  Read on . . .

This is Mr. Lusk’s third mailer.  Lusk seems to be zig-zagging, trying to find a message that will resonate with voters.  So far, without success.  In his first mailer, Mr. Lusk highlighted his volunteerism, patriotism, and veteran’s status.  However, this strategy blew up when it was discovered that Lusk was using his Memorial Markers veterans charity’s email list (generated by the city) for campaign solicitations.  Reprehensible, to say the least.  Mr. Lusk then manufactured a number of accomplishments that didn’t pass the smell test.  Being for or against something is not an accomplishment.  And if you have to stretch back 5 years or 12 years for an accomplishment, that only serves to underscore a lack of accomplishment.  (In an earlier post, Mr. Lusk’s accomplishments were thoroughly debunked.)

Mr. Lusk’s latest strategy seems to be highlighting his relationships with various county and state officials.  At meet-the-candidate events (e.g., at the Manor), Mr. Lusk intimates that he has, and can continue to, grease the skids with various government officials . . . hence, his photo with Lynn Riley, the Georgia State Revenue Commissioner.  Mr. Lusk seems to be implying that he can leverage this relationship with Ms. Riley to achieve tax fairness for voters.   But here’s the problem for Mr. Lusk.  While his mailer was coursing its way through the U.S. postal system, Ms. Riley’s Department of Revenue rejected Fulton County’s tax digest.

Fulton County tax digest rejected by state Department of Revenue

We are now back to square 1 and potentially looking at paying inflated tax bills that caused so many of us to flood town hall meetings across Fulton County in June.  So Mr. Lusk has unwittingly hitched his wagon to Fulton County’s most unpopular government official.  Whoops!

3rd Lusk Mailer - Back
Excerpt From Latest Lusk Mailer

It seems that Mr Lusk’s tall tales about his role in rolling back the 2017 property valuations are unraveling.  The truth is that Mr. Lusk di little to oppose the huge property tax hikes in June.  I was heavily involved with fighting the inflated tax assessments.  And I can tell you that Mr. Lusk did NOT play a prominent role in opposing the property tax increases. I only saw him at one town hall meeting, where he was silent.  Mr. Lusk did not attend nor speak at the all-important Fulton County Board of Assessors (BOA) meeting in downtown Atlanta.  I did attend and speak, as did Commissioner Bob Ellis, Mayor Lockwood, and Council Member Matt Kunz.  Mr. Lusk was nowhere to be found.  Following is a link to the Fulton County BOA meeting.  Scroll down and click on “Discussion 2017 of Property Values.”  You can hear Mayor Lockwood speak at 30:30 and me speak at 37:00.

Discussion 2017 of Property Values

Furthermore, when the inflated tax appraisals were first broached at City Council, Mr. Lusk said NOTHING . . . not a peep.

 In fact, Lusk’s actions in response to the tax increase were counterproductive. Mr. Lusk joined Council Members Thurman and Kunz in quickly surrendering on the tax increase and instead promoting a roll-back of Milton’s millage rates.  This roll-back, which would have had little effect on overall property taxes, was a transparent attempt to curry favor with voters in advance of the election.  At best, Lusk’s millage rate proposal was distraction from the main battle against the tax assessments; at worst, Mr. Lusk undermined efforts to rescind the tax assessments.  Mr. Lusk only jumped on the opposition bandwagon once citizens’ ire became clear to him.  His sole contribution was signing a letter opposing the tax increase that was signed by all 7 council members.  

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017, Ethics

Multiple Media Outlets Cover Lusk’s Misappropriation and Misuse of Citizen Emails

Posted on by Milton Coalition

download

October 25, 2017

Author:  Tim Becker

Mr. Lusk, Integrity Counts!

On October 11th, Council Member Bill Lusk sent an email inviting veterans to a cookout at Scottsdale Farms.  The emails referenced Milton’s program for recognizing fallen veterans with markers on Memorial Day and Veterans Day.  Immediately, I began receiving emails from concerned citizens who were not veterans, but had registered through the City government for markers for relatives who are deceased veterans.  These citizens were concerned that their personal information had been compromised and was being used for political solicitations . . . and they were right. 

On October 12th, I alerted both Mr. Lusk and the City about the issue.  The problem is that Mr. Lusk was using a city-generated e-mail list that was provided to a veterans charity for the singular purpose of communicating with citizens about markers for their deceased relatives.  It was never intended to be used for political solicitations, but that is exactly how Mr. Lusk used it. And his behavior is reprehensible.

Mr. Lusk claims that his use of the memorial markers list was an “honest oversight on my part.”  However, Mr. Lusk’s later actions belie this explanation.  Despite being made aware of the seriousness of this issue, Mr. Lusk continued to use the memorial markers email list.  Four days after sending out his initial invitation to the cookout at Scottsdale Farms, Mr. Lusk sent another invitation on October 16th for a second event at Little River Farms.  Honest oversight . . . I don’t think so.  This story has now been reported in a number of new media outlets.  Following are links to various stories on this email scandal:

Milton Herald: Milton Issues Apology for Improper Use of Emails

WSB: Longtime Councilman Using City-run Database to Solicit Votes

The Patch: Councilman Used Emails For Veterans Program To Promote Campaign Event

AJC: Milton Councilman Improperly Used Email Addresses From City

These news stories are pretty damning in their assessment of the situation.  However, the reporters failed to discern and report on certain key points that highlight the issue of Mr. Lusk’s integrity.

  • Mr. Lusk continued to use the veterans email list AFTER he was made aware of the privacy issue.
  • The initial invitation addressed recipients as VETERANS.  The list used was not Mr. Lusk’s general contact list, as Lusk asserts.  And in fact, citizens on his general contact list have confirmed that they did not receive an invitation.
Hello Fello Veteran
Screen shot of Lusk’s invitation to Cookout.  Note that it addresses veterans.

Citizens, this misappropriation and misuse of emails is a serious violation of the public trust by an elected official.  It is so serious that the The City of Milton sent Mr. Lusk an admonition and cease-and-desist letter.  Following is the letter:

 

Lusk Cease and Desist Letter
Letter provided to me by the City in response to Open Records Request.

However, the story gets even worse.  Some city staff were also inappropriately sent campaign appeals from Council Member Lusk.  Such solicitations to city staff are highly inappropriate, and I believe, unethical.  City staff should be free to operate, free from any political pressure.  Following is a letter sent by the City Manager to City Council alerting them to this issue.

Email About Campaign Appeal To Staff
Provided to me by City in response to an Open Records Request.

This issue was considered serious enough that the City Manager sent out the following to City Staff.  This aspect of the story was also not covered by the local press.

Guidance To Staff
Provided to me by the city in response to an Open Records Request.

And following is City Council’s discussion of the email controversy.  Notice that Mr. Lusk says nothing . . . just like he avoided WSB’s cameras . . . hiding instead behind a prepared written statement.  Mr. Lusk had a golden opportunity to explain his actions, but said nothing.  No apology . . . no explanation . . . silence.

Citizens, this data breach was NOT an “honest oversight”.  This misuse of your personal information fits into a pattern of misbehavior and malfeasance from Mr. Lusk that many of us have witnessed over the past 2 years.  Citizens, we deserve better than Mr. Lusk.  We deserve elected representatives that will serve citizens with integrity.

Advocating For Clean Government,

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017, Ethics

Lusk Is Unapologetic . . . Doubles Down On Deception

Posted on by Milton Coalition

October 21, 2017

First, thank you for your expressions of solidarity with my efforts to achieve good governance in Milton.  Over the past few days, your incredible outpouring of support has been both humbling and encouraging.  As you might imagine, taking on Milton’s deeply entrenched politicians and Special Interests is tough work.

Second, I want to thank the Milton city government for its swift and serious response to the misappropriation and misuse of citizens’ personal data.  The City Manager, City Attorney, and Communications Director seem to be taking the right steps to reassure citizens and to make necessary changes to ensure there are no future data breaches or misuse of citizens’ personal information.

Over the past few days, several news organizations have been covering the data breach scandal in Milton.  My understanding is that WSB will air a story on Monday and the Milton Herald will likely run a story in next week’s newspaper.  Articles have already run in Saturday’s Atlanta Journal-Constitution (front page of Local section B) and in The Alpharetta-Milton Patch.  Both articles are excellent.  Following are links to those articles:

Councilman Used Emails For Veterans Program To Promote Campaign Event

Milton councilman improperly used email addresses from city

Please take careful note of Mr. Lusk’s responses in these articles.  Lusk’s strategy seems to be one of deceive, diminish, and dismiss.

  • Deceive – Mr. Lusk doubles down on his deception by telling more lies to excuse his behavior.
  • Diminish – Lusk contends that compromising the personal data of hundreds of citizens is no big deal.
  • Dismiss – Lusk contends this controversy is all about scoring cheap political points.

Let’s start with the deception.  Mr. Lusk states that his use of the city-generated veterans email list was “honest oversight on my part” and “I used my complete contact list to send out invitations to my campaign events.”  This is a lie . . . plain and simple.  Here’s the truth:

Mr. Lusk began his e-mail solicitation with “Hello Fellow Veteran”.  Following is a screenshot of part of the actual invitation.

Hello Fello Veteran

In the next paragraph, Mr. Lusk explicitly references being a veteran and the veterans’ memorial marker initiative.  See the following screenshot of the next paragraph of his invitation:

Invitation Second Paragraph

The above paragraphs make it very clear that Mr. Lusk was using a specific e-mail list—i.e., the city-generated memorial markers list—to send invitations, NOT his “complete contact list” (which he claims incidentally had memorial markers e-mail addresses mixed in).  It is not coincidental that Mr. Lusk even references the memorial markers initiative.

It is incredible that Mr. Lusk claims his misuse was an “honest oversight” when Lusk used the same e-mail distribution list after—that’s right . . . after—the City alerted him to the issue of his use of a City-generated e-mail list.  The City alerted Mr. Lusk about the issue on October 13, 2017.  Nevertheless, using the same distribution list, Mr. Lusk blasted out another campaign email invitation on October 16, 2017 to a second event at Little River Farms.

Lusk Little River Farms Excerpt.png

Why would Mr. Lusk continue use the city-generated veterans list even after he was made aware of the seriousness of the issue?  Arrogance and desperation.  Arrogance, because Mr. Lusk has typically gotten away with such acts in the past.  He did not expect the City to issue such a strong response . . . he was wrong.  Desperation, because his opponent, Laura Bentley, is running a very strong campaign against him and has Mr. Lusk worried.  At this point, Mr. Lusk seems willing to break any and all rules to win.  That is why he planted many dozens of illegal signs in Crabapple the night before early voting.  And that is why he took a risk in using a city-generated email list.  Fortunately, both schemes have backfired on him, with citizens increasingly disposed to vote against him.  Mr. Lusk cannot get out of his own way.

Finally, note that Mr. Lusk had a golden opportunity to explain himself at last Monday’s City Council meeting.  However, he said nothing.  No explanation.  No apology.  Nothing . . . stone cold silence.

And Mr. Lusk has yet to apologize for the data breach that compromised the personal data of hundreds of Milton citizens and has shaken confidence in our local government.  Mr. Lusk thinks he has nothing to apologize for.  Mr. Lusk thinks the data breach issue is minor and being exploited for political purposes.   This contention highlights the other part of his strategy:  diminish and dismiss . . . more about that tomorrow.

Advocating for Clean Government,

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017, Ethics

Data Breach and Email Scandal . . . Mr. Lusk Should Resign and Withdraw

Posted on by Milton Coalition

securitybreachdatabreach_825877

October 19, 2017

In one fell swoop, Council Member Bill Lusk has managed to disgrace the City (and a tax-exempt charitable organization) while also taking politics in the City to a new low.  How did Mr. Lusk manage to accomplish such an incredible feat?  Mr. Lusk misappropriated a city-generated database containing personal information of citizens, including email addresses.  This database was provided to a charitable organization, Milton Veterans Memorial Markers, that honors fallen veterans . . . the markers (mostly white crosses) that you see planted along roads on Memorial Day and Veterans Day.  Mr. Lusk misappropriated this information for political purposes:  to create an email distribution list for political solicitations.

This is a data breach not unlike the data breaches that have become all too common these days—the most recent being the Equifax data breach.  However, in this case, the hacker was not a gang of North Korean, Chinese, or Russian cyber-criminals.  Rather, the “hacker” was our own Council Member Bill Lusk.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident.  This fits into a pattern of bad behavior from Mr. Lusk that I have witnessed over the past 23 months of my involvement in City government.  This is the same Bill Lusk that promoted a developer’s project and re-zoning in advance of a judicial hearing on that developer’s re-zoning application.  It is the same Bill Lusk that planted dozens of illegal signs (that he refuses to take down) all over Crabapple on the night before early voting at the Milton City Library.  Citizens have been witness to such reprehensible acts from Mr. Lusk on a regular basis.

To its credit, in this matter, the City has taken swift and decisive action.

First, the City issued an email to potentially affected citizens about the unauthorized use of their personal information by Mr. Lusk.  The City took responsibility for the lapse, apologized, and committed to taking corrective action to ensure citizens’ personal information is protected in the future.  I applaud the City for its leadership in this matter.

Important Message - Part 1

Important Message - Part 2

Second, the City issued an unequivocal reprimand and cease-and-desist order to Mr. Lusk.  In no uncertain terms, the City expressed its displeasure with Mr. Lusk and directed him to refrain from all uses of the city-provided e-mail addresses.  Following is the letter issued to Mr. Lusk.

Lusk Cease and Desist Letter

In the coming days, I will provide additional information on this scandal, including additional documentation.

I want to make clear that this violation of the public trust is a very personal issue for me.  I am a veteran, having served nearly 8 years as a nuclear submarine officer in the U.S. Navy.  My wife is also a veteran, having served nearly 12 years as an officer in the U.S. Navy.  My grandfather, father, and brother all served in the armed forces.  We are saddened and troubled to see such a noble initiative to honor fallen veterans sullied in this fashion.

Given the serious nature of this ethics violation, I am calling upon Mr. Lusk 1) to immediately resign from City Council and 2) to withdraw from the race for the District 2 Council seat.  Resignation and withdrawal is the honorable course of action.  Mr. Lusk would spare the City and citizens from having to endure long, painful, and expensive ethics hearings on this matter, which seem inevitable.  Following are 1) my comments before Council this past Monday night and 2) Council Member Longoria’s subsequent comments on the matter.

Council Member Longoria’s comments follow.  Joe gets it.  Notice Mr. Lusk’s feigned disengagement from the discussion.  And notice Thurman and Kunz’s lack of any contribution to the discussion.  Do they care about ethics?  (Rhetorical question.)

Advocating for clean governance,

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017, Ethics, Good Governance

Mr. Lusk’s Grand Miscalculation . . . Overlooking the Citizen X-Factor

Posted on by Milton Coalition
IMG_5233
Sign Placed on Alpharetta Government Property On Night Before Early Voting

October 17, 2017

Yesterday, I published a post about Mr. Lusk’s assault on Crabapple under the cover of darkness.  On the night before early voting, Mr. Lusk plastered Crabapple with many dozens of illegal signs.  Let’s be blunt . . . this is cheating pure and simple.

So cheaters never prosper, right?  Well, I would like to think so, but that is not always the case, particularly with the campaign signs.  The City of Milton will certainly remove signs on city property (and there were some) and signs in the right-of-way.  However, signs that are properly located on private property are off-limits . . . the city has no way of knowing whether the sign placement was authorized by the property owner or not.  And Mr. Lusk knows this . . . and accordingly he will continue with his cheating . . . that is, unless we can change the calculus.  The calculus?  Yes, calculus.

You see, Mr. Lusk is an engineer.  To Lusk, politics is an equation . . . benefits on one side and costs on the other.  (BTW, integrity counts for nothing in this calculus.)  Every decision he makes is based on benefits vs. costs . . . to Mr. Lusk (not to you, the citizens).  The benefit of illegal signs are more votes.  The cost of illegal signs is perhaps—a big perhaps—a penalty (mostly likely a small fine) from the city.  This is a no-brainer for Mr. Lusk.  The benefits, more votes, outweigh the costs, a small fine (that is, if you can prove the infraction . . . a big IF).

Fortunately for citizens, Mr. Lusk has made many miscalculations over the past 2 years.  He has often gotten the calculus wrong.  The costs of many of his decisions have exceeded the benefits.  Why?  Because Mr. Lusk left out one critical variable in his cost-benefit analysis.  It is Milton’s X-factor.  What is that X-factor?  It is you . . . citizens.  Long ago, Mr. Lusk forgot about you and cast his lot with Milton’s Special Interests, aka developers.  Mr. Lusk became arrogant and entitled.  However, for the past 2 years, more and more of you have been showing up, standing up, and speaking out.  And that has made all the difference.  The citizen X-factor has turned Mr. Lusk’s calculus upside-down.  Mr. Lusk has increasingly found himself on the losing side of many issues.

So citizens, let’s turn Mr. Lusk’s yard-sign cheating to our advantage.  Let’s take the high road and leave Mr. Lusk stranded on the low road.  Here’s the plan:

  • Do NOT uproot Lusk’s signs. Leave that to the City and to private property owners.
  • Do NOT erect illegal signs—e.g., put signs on city property, in the right-of-way, or on private property without the property owner’s permission.
  • Report immediately any sign violations to City code enforcement.
  • If you see any Lusk crews erecting illegal signs on private property (also known as trespassing), immediately contact the Milton police. Ensure that Milton police trespass the perpetrators.
  • If you live in a subdivision where Mr. Lusk has planted signs on your subdivision’s borders (usually at the front entrance), immediately contact your HOA to request expeditious sign removal. HOAs should lodge a complaint with the City, so that Mr. Lusk is cited for a violation.  HOAs should also contact Mr. Lusk and demand that he cease-and-desist from illegal sign placements on HOA property.  Lusk’s city e-mail is bill.lusk@cityofmiltonga.us
  • Ensure your own yard signs are in good shape—that is, erect and perpendicular to the road. Those displaying signs on the open road should ensure their signs are out of the right-of-way.
  • If you don’t have a Bentley sign, get one.
  • Email Mr. Lusk to express your dissatisfaction with his blatant disregard of Milton’s sign ordinances. Here is Mr. Lusk’s e-mail address:  lusk@cityofmiltonga.us
  • Most importantly, educate your neighbors, friends, and family about Mr. Lusk’s attempts to subvert democracy in Milton.

If enough citizens take the above actions, we will once again upend Mr. Lusk’s political calculus.  He will stop the illegal sign placement.  Citizens, you are the X-factor in City politics.  If enough citizens are informed and engaged, we will oust Mr. Lusk and usher in an era of good governance in Milton.

IMG_5244 (1)
Lusk Signs on backside of Alpharetta’s St. Michelle Subdivision.  Note Milton Library in Background

The above photo shows some of Mr. Lusk’s signs on Mayfield Road.  Note the Milton Library in the background.  This is the sole location for early voting in Milton.  These 4 signs were placed on the night before early voting, along with dozens of other illegal signs in both Milton and Alpharetta.  The four signs in the photo are actually in Alpharetta.  The board fence is on the backside of Alpharetta’s St. Michelle neighborhood.  It is doubtful that the residents provided permission for these signs . . . or even know about them.  Code enforcement in Alpharetta will not remove these signs.  Removal requires tracking down the property owner and convincing him to take down the signs.  This example of Mr. Lusk’s sign placement is a metaphor for his record on Council . . . always bending, breaking, and changing the rules to his advantage and the advantage of his patrons.  Milton, we deserve better.

Advocating For Clean Elections,

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017, Ethics

Massive Sign Deployment Shamelessly Flaunts Rules . . . Typical Lusk

Posted on by Milton Coalition

October 16, 2017

Last night’s mass deployment of unauthorized/illegal signs by the Lusk campaign is yet another example of how Mr. Lusk has operated for 12 years as a Council Member . . . bending, breaking, and flaunting the rules for himself and the Special Interests he represents.  It is yet another egregious example of dirty politics perpetrated by Mr. Lusk in our City.

For weeks, this blog’s readers have been urging me to weigh in on the issue of campaign signs.  With some justification, readers have contended that the Lusk campaign is breaking/skirting Milton’s sign ordinances.  Lusk’s placement of signs around last week’s Crabapple Fest were especially egregious, prompting some citizen complaints to the City.  However, I decided to steer clear of this fight, as I believe—or believed—that the election focus needs to be on substantive issues of policy and how candidates comport themselves in the conduct of government business.  My sense was that the Lusk campaign was baiting its opponents on the sign issue—that is, creating a distraction from  substantive issues and attempting to drag Ms. Bentley’s campaign into the mud.  However, last night, the Lusk campaign crossed a line and made sign placement a substantive campaign issue . . .

Last night, many of dozens of signs were plastered on properties in and around the Crabapple area.  As you know, early voting for city elections begins today.  The signs were placed to cover all approaches to the Milton City library, which is Milton’s only polling location for early voting.

All of these new signs seem to have been installed by a single group of individuals, as they all appeared last night and all seem to have been installed in similar fashion–deeply planted and perfectly perpendicular to the road.

Most/all of these signs appear to be unauthorized/illegal–i.e., were installed without property owners’ permission.  Given the timing (on the evening before early voting), the rapid deployment, the large quantity of signs, and the clearly illegal placement of the signs (discussed below), these signs represent a serious threat to the integrity of our local elections. 

I cite as evidence of illegal/unauthorized sign placement:

  • Signs are placed on the property line between 2 homes, making it ambiguous if either homeowner (and likely neither) authorized/placed the signs.  (We have seen such suspicious placements elsewhere in the City.)
  • Many signs are clearly and purposely in the right-of-way
  • Signs are placed on city property–Alpharetta (e.g., Alpharetta Government Center) and Milton (e.g., Broadwell Pavilion)
  • Signs are placed on HOA property (e.g., Kensington Farms and Six Hills).  It has been confirmed that at least one of these placements was unauthorized.
  • Placements are generally not in front of homes/businesses, but along the fence lines of  neighborhoods, on empty lots, etc.

Concerned citizens have verified with one property owner that placement of a Lusk sign on her property was not authorized.  Concerned citizens are currently verifying other unauthorized placements.

I hope and trust that the City is going to take prompt and meaningful corrective action regarding this situation.  Expeditious sign removal and resolution of this matter are needed to ensure the integrity of our local elections.  Given the magnitude of this sign deployment the night before early voting and previous infractions, the Lusk campaign should be made to provide an explanation.

Given that this is not the Lusk campaign’s first sign offense, it concerns me that the Lusk campaign is showing a pattern of disregard for local regulations about placement of campaign signs.  Lusk has been in office for 12 years.  He knows the rules and is purposely flaunting them.  Lusk has obviously calculated that the ramifications of this breach of Milton’s sign laws are outweighed by the benefits of exposure conferred by such a large deployment of signs on the first day of early voting.  This is the Bill Lusk that I have come to know over the past two years.  Lusk holds himself up as a paragon of virtue while shamelessly flaunting the rules.  Lusk’s callous disregard for principles of good governance has caused much dysfunction in our City.  Citizens, Mr. Lusk has given us yet another reason—as if there weren’t enough—to unceremoniously remove him from office.  Milton deserves much better than this.  Early voting begins today . . . Vote Today For Bentley.  And please forward this post to your friends, neighbors, and family.

Advocating For Clean Elections,

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, Election 2017

Lusk Publishes Lame/Deceptive Set of “Accomplishments”

Posted on by Milton Coalition

October 8, 2017

At his website and in a recent mailer, Bill Lusk lists his top “accomplishments” as a City Council Member.  In some cases, Lusk’s alleged accomplishments are completely fabricated, with Lusk incredibly taking credit for the accomplishments/positions of his opponent (e.g., denying high density development and achieving 3-acre minimums along gravel roads).  In other cases, his alleged “accomplishment” is far past its expiration date, with Mr. Lusk going back 12 years with one “accomplishment.”  And most of Lusk’s claimed “accomplishments” are not accomplishments at all.  Opposing something is not really an “accomplishment.”  A yes or no vote on an issue is not really an “accomplishment.”  A real accomplishment would be taking the lead on an issue and successfully advocating for a solution, as Laura Bentley has done for 2+ years .  What initiatives did Mr. Lusk champion and get implemented?  Does Mr. Lusk know the meaning of the word “accomplishment”?  Does he think voters will not take a little time to think about what he so carelessly listed as his “accomplishments”?  Mr. Lusk has been on Council for 11 years and these “accomplishments” are the best he can come up with?  Really?  The truth is that Mr. Lusk is running FROM his record.  He has accomplished a lot for developers, but has done nothing for citizens.

Accomplishment 1:  I fought the Fulton County Board of Commissioners to rescind Property Value Assessments.

The Facts:

  1. THIS IS FALSE . . . plain and simple. The Fulton County Board of Commissioners (including our local representative, Bob Ellis) fought hard to rescind the inflated property value assessments.  The problem was with Fulton County’s Board of Assessors.  You would think Mr. Lusk would have gotten this basic fact correct.
  2. Nearly every North Fulton County elected official opposed the tax increase. All seven Milton City Council members opposed the tax assessments and signed a letter of opposition.  In any case, opposing something is not an accomplishment.
  3. Lusk did NOT play a prominent role in opposing the property tax increases. I only saw him at 1 town hall meeting, where he was silent.  Mr. Lusk did not attend nor speak at the all-important Fulton County Board of Assessors meeting in downtown Atlanta.  I did attend and speak, as did Commissioner Bob Ellis, Mayor Lockwood, and Council Member Matt Kunz.  Mr. Lusk was nowhere to be found.  The following video shows Council’s initial discussion of the property tax increase.  Mr. Lusk says NOTHING.

 

4.  Lusk’s actions relative to the tax increase were counterproductive. Mr. Lusk joined Council Members Thurman and Kunz in quickly surrendering on the tax increase and instead promoting a roll-back of Milton’s millage rates.  This roll-back, which would have had little effect on overall property taxes, was a transparent effort to curry favor with voters.  At best, this millage rate proposal was distraction from the main battle against the tax assessments; at worst, Mr. Lusk undermined efforts to rescind the tax assessments.  Later, Mr. Lusk jumped on the opposition bandwagon once citizens’ ire became clear to him.

Accomplishment 2:  I continue to fight against Milton’s high density and over development.

The Facts:

  1. THIS IS FALSE . . . plain and simple.
  2. The truth is that Mr. Lusk has been the chief proponent of high density and overdevelopment in Milton.
  3. During his current term, three rezonings from low density to high density have been considered by Council. Bill Lusk voted for all three high density rezonings, granting anywhere from 2 to 3 times more density than was allowed under existing zoning.  This includes the townhouse development across from Cambridge High School.
  4. Lusk also was the chief advocate of the infamous CSO, which would have allowed high density housing in the rural areas of Milton. This ordinance would have allowed HOAs to manage private sewer systems!
  5. During his current term, Council has considered extending sewer on 4 occasions. Bill Lusk voted for all 4 sewer extensions, thereby allowing higher density in the affected areas.
  6. Lusk opponent, Laura Bentley, has been the chief opponent of high density and overdevelopment. Bentley spoke at Council against all 3 rezonings that Mr. Lusk voted for.
CHS Town Homes
Lusk Made First Motion to Approve Townhouses Across from CHS

Accomplishment 3:  I cast the deciding vote to deny a 256-unit apartment complex that I felt was not in the best interest of Milton.

The Facts:

  1. THIS ASSERTION IS HIGHLY DECEPTIVE. Lusk engages in some interesting sleight of hand.  This “accomplishment” is meant to “prove” that Mr. Lusk is fighting against high density as he asserts in the previous “accomplishment.”  (BTW, a vote for or against something is not really an accomplishment.)
  2. THIS VOTE WAS NOT A VOTE AGAINST HIGH DENSITY. The proposed re-zoning was to rezone the property from Commercial/Business to Residential.  I would have also voted against this rezoning.  This was a vote to preserve Milton’s commercial/business capacity and maintain a strong commercial tax base.  As explained in item 2 above, Lusk consistently votes for residential-to-residential rezonings from low density to high density.  To cite a commercial-to-residential rezoning as a credential for opposing high density is just plain dishonest.
  3. This vote was taken over 5 years ago. It is interesting that Mr. Lusk had to go back 5 years to find an “example” of his fighting high density.  One year later, Council unanimously voted against a similar proposal by the same developer at the same site.
  4. All 4 Council Members that voted against this rezoning could claim to be the “deciding vote.”

Accomplishment 4:  I fought to create the City of Milton despite strong opposition from the Fulton County Board of Commissioners.

The Facts:

  1. This moldy-oldie  “accomplishment” dates back 12 years and obviously predates the founding of the city. Why is it that Mr. Lusk cannot conjure up more recent accomplishments from his current term on Council?  The reason, I would assert, is that Lusk has no recent accomplishments . . . or at least none that would gain him votes from anybody other than developers.
  2. Many dozens of people can claim they “fought” for the creation of the City of Milton. This is like saying you are in favor of “puppies” or “oxygen.”
  3. People with whom I have spoken have stated that, as with the recent property tax assessments, Lusk did not play an especially prominent role in the creation of the City.

Accomplishment 5:  I continue to fight to maintain and protect Milton’s cherished Gravel Roads.

  1. MS. BENTLEY (NOT MR. LUSK) HAS BEEN THE CHIEF PROPONENT OF PROTECTING MILTON’S GRAVEL ROADS. MS. Bentley initially raised the issue of one-acre vs. three-acre minimum lot sizes on gravel roads when she protested the development at the corner of Nix and Freemanville.  Then Ms. Bentley led citizens in a successful campaign for 3-acre minimum lot sizes along gravel roads.  Residents called Bentley when the issue was raised on Wood Road.  She attended meetings of Wood Road residents and advised them on how to advocate for preservation of their gravel road.  If you drive down Wood Road today, you will see a lot of Bentley signs . . . Wood Road residents know the truth.
  2. Lusk was uncharacteristically quiet during Council discussions about gravel roads. However, Mr. Lusk’s two closest allies, mayoral candidate Laura Rencher and Council Member Matt Kunz, both advocated loudly against 3 acre minimums along gravel roads (see posts below).  Both cited non-existent “precedent” as justification for their support for desecrating our gravel roads.  Mr. Lusk let Ms. Rencher and Mr. Kunz promote the notion of 1-acre lots along gravel roads.  When it became clear the votes to overturn 3-acre minimums were not there, Mr. Lusk swung to the majority.  This is an often-used Lusk tactic:  Switch sides on an issue when it becomes clear where the majority is leaning.  It is unprincipled, but effective.  This tactic allows “plausible deniability” with uninformed voters who will not dig deeper to find the truth.  That is why Mr. Lusk hates this blog . . . I dig down to inconvenient truths.

Here is Matt Kunz’s post on gravel roads where he advocates for 1-acre (vs. 3-acre) minimum lot sizes.

Kunz Gravel Road post

Following is Laura Rencher’s post about minimum lot sizes on gravel roads:

Rencher Post on 3 Acre Minimums

Advocating For Truth and Citizens

Tim Becker

Council Member Bill Lusk, District 1 Redistricting Scandal, Ethics, Good Governance

Mr. Lusk Was Chief Accomplice in Redistricting Scandal

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Vote-Denied

October 10, 2017

Council Member Bill Lusk has pooh-poohed Milton’s recent redistricting scandal as much ado about nothing.  The Milton Herald wrote about Mr. Lusk that he felt “the request was a minor change and he didn’t think it required a public discussion.”  Furthermore, Mr. Lusk was the only member of Council that complied with Ms. Thurman’s request for a letter supporting legislation to change the district.  Mr. Lusk made minor modifications to a form letter provided to him by Ms. Thurman.

I strongly disagree that the district change was minor.  As I have discussed (in more detail) in previous posts, Ms. Thurman should have vacated her seat when she moved outside her district.  Changing District 1’s boundaries meant that all of Milton’s voters—every one of them (as voting is at large)—were disenfranchised.  Furthermore, the one third of Milton voters that live in District 1 were denied the opportunity to run for the vacated seat.  So the redistricting was actually a major change that impacted all voters.  Furthermore, with this district change, Mr. Lusk’s actions revealed his propensity for non-transparency, even when changing Milton’s Charter.

Unfortunately, there is an even darker side to this story.  It is a story that Mr. Lusk would prefer that citizens not know.  You see, Mr. Lusk was the one person, other than Ms. Thurman, that most directly benefited from the redistricting.  By moving the district lines, Mr. Lusk eliminated a potential competitor for his seat.  Had the district lines not been changed, Ms. Thurman would have found herself in Mr. Lusk’s district and might have challenged him.  Additionally, Mr. Lusk and Ms. Thurman have been political allies since the founding of the City, so the district change kept their alliance intact.  So you see, Mr. Lusk was Ms. Thurman’s primary accomplice in clandestinely changing the district lines in Milton, so that he could eliminate a potential competitor while also keeping his voting bloc intact.  Mr. Lusk aided and abetted in the thwarting of democracy in Milton.

Recently, Mr. Lusk went on the offensive regarding the Redistricting Scandal.  I urge all citizens to watch the above video of a nearly 7-minute rant by Mr. Lusk during a Special City Council Meeting called to extend qualifying period for the District 3 Council Seat.  Note the following when watching the video:

  • Mr. Lusk incredibly claims that the redistricting was “perfectly transparent.”  Quite the opposite was true.  At the time, not a single citizen was made aware of the redistricting.  No opportunity for public input was provided.
  • Mr. Lusk claims that all of Council participated in the redistricting.  This is false.  Notice Mayor Lockwood shaking his head in response to this assertion.  The truth is that Mr. Thurman worked with a state representative for 2+ months to change the district lines.  Ms. Thurman only apprised Council of the redistricting as the bill to change the district was being introduced in the Georgia State Assembly.  Only Bill Lusk submitted a letter supporting the change.
  • Mr. Lusk likens the redistricting to extending the election qualification period.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  No less than 5 times, the City Attorney advised Council that the qualification period extension was mandated by state law.  Contrast that with the fact that the City Attorney was kept entirely in the dark about the redistricting.  He likely would have advised that the redistricting be added to a Council agenda for discussion and approval.
  • Mr. Lusk asserts that the City’s issues stem from a personal agenda . . . yes, Mr. Lusk’s personal agenda.  Other than Ms. Thurman, Mr. Lusk had the most to gain from the redistricting, as described above.
  • Note Mr. Lusk’s use of the word “lynch” to describe citizens’ actions to expose malfeasance in our city government.  Such incendiary language has no place in our public dialogue, particularly coming from an elected official.  Rather than excoriating citizens for exposing corruption in our city, Mr. Lusk should be congratulating citizen watchdogs.
  • Mr. Lusk accuses his critics of “taking down the City.”  Unfortunately, he chose the wrong adverb . . . citizens are rather taking back the City . . . taking it back from the Special Interests and their agents on Council, like Mr. Lusk.

After watching Mr. Lusk’s rant, ask yourself:  Is this the best we can do in Milton?  Is Mr. Lusk really the best choice to represent me on Council for the next 4 years?  As someone who has attended nearly every city council meeting for the last 2 years, I can confidently assert that we can do better . . . and must do better.  I am voting for Laura Bentley.

(I have re-published some blog posts from the Redistricting Scandal.)

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim Becker