(Note: I am updating this post to reflect additional research, attendees’ accounts of the forum, and the forum’s aftermath. See the PART 2 at bottom of this post.)

I have been involved in Milton politics and government since 2015, so I have developed a sensitive nose for BS.  I can sniff out a political set-up or dirty trick from a mile away.  So I had myself a good chuckle when I was recently forwarded an email “invitation” (all quotes intentional) for a candidate “forum” sponsored by “Concerned Citizens for GA” that was sent to all four candidates in Milton’s upcoming city council races.  I laughed because this political ploy was so clumsy and amateurish.  Just what you would expect from the not-so-clever tricksters organizing this forum. (The invitation is provided at the bottom of this post.)

Upon reading the invitation, alarm bells started ringing and red flags began popping up.  First, the invitation arrived out of the blue to candidates Cookerly and Cranmer.  A forum had been established, including date, times, format, rules, etc.  Everything was set . . . take it or leave it.  And some of the rules struck me as odd, especially the rule that “Any question targeting one candidate will NOT be asked” . . . a rule custom-designed to protect an incumbent from answering any questions about his record . . . namely Rick Mohrig, who has an abysmal record that he does not want to debate.  It struck me that this forum was really intended to pre-empt a real give-and-take debate that might ask tough questions and allow opportunities for rebuttals. 

My suspicions aroused, I began to research the Concerned Citizens for GA (CCG), which asserts it is “group of grassroots citizens . . . not affiliated with any political party.”  I googled Concerned Citizens for Georgia (both spelling out “Georgia” and using “GA” as used in the email invitation) and I found literally nothing . . . ZERO search results.

However, with a just little digging, I did find revealing information about the “Event Chair” . . . a Karen Gwyn.  Ms. Gwyn is a partisan activist better known in Milton as Karen Dubin.  I assume based on Google searches that Gwyn is her maiden name (although “Zlotnick” also turns up in Google searches as a last name for Ms. Dubin.)  A half a dozen searches connected Gwyn to Dubin.  See White Pages example below:

I suppose that Ms. Dubin is using her maiden name to evade candidates’ radars.  Nice try . . . a swing and a miss.  You see, Ms. Dubin is closely tied with Rick Mohrig, so she is not the neutral sponsor she implies.  You might recall that Dubin figured prominently in the Milton’s Election Interference Scandal.  Ms. Dubin was the person who first introduced (in January 2023) Mohrig to Vernetta Nuriddan, the consultant that Mohrig forced upon the City Manager and who was subsequently terminated by the City . . . costing Milton precious election planning time (and money).  Later, in May 2023, Dubin interfered in contract negotiations with the elections consultant, pressuring the consultant to sign a contract with the City.  Obviously, someone at the City was improperly sharing information with Dubin.  Mohrig is the most likely suspect considering how he strong-armed the City Manager into hiring Nuriddan.   Despite Ms. Nuriddan’s annoyance with Dubin’s meddling, Dubin continued to interfere with Milton’s election planning once Nuriddan had been hired, but Dubin requested secrecy.  According to Nuriddan, Dubin called her (June 2023) to advise her not to mention Lisa Cauley to staff.  Nuriddan expressed concern about Cauley and Dubin wanting to work “in secret.” 

Attached at the bottom of this post is a pdf file with excerpts (from my blog post) about Dubin’s interference in the hiring and engagement of Milton’s elections consultant.  You can access the blog post by clicking on this link: Election Interference (Part 2):  Backroom Tampering in Hiring and Work of Milton’s Election Consultant.  BTW, Ms. Dubin is also Recording Secretary of Fulton County Republican Women; Lisa Cauley is the president.  So Dubin is not non-partisan as she claims.  Similarly, an internet search of the moderator also indicates that she is a partisan activist leader.

For Karen Gwyn—aka Karen Dubin—to try to disguise herself off as a non-partisan, neutral, and objective sponsor of an elections forum is laughable, but more troubling it is dishonest.  Dubin is a close Mohrig associate . . . and I suspect Mohrig had advance knowledge of Dubin’s ploy.

My understanding is that Cookerly responded that she could not attend the forum because of a prior commitment (i.e., a memorial service) and that Cranmer has not responded and therefore (it should be assumed) will not attend.  Let’s see if Dubin (and Mohrig) move forward with the forum under the false pretense that both candidates for one or both races will be attending . . . a dishonest means to drum up an audience for Mohrig.  Perhaps, Dubin and Mohrig will try to score some cheap political points by asserting Cookerly and Cranmer were no-shows and snapping a few photos of empty debate podiums.

This sort of campaign trickery is to be expected from Mohrig and his associates like Karen Dubin.  Mohrig’s unethical and dishonest behavior on council is now being reflected in his campaign.  The deceptive candidate forum only further highlights the need to reject Mohrig at the polls in November.

There is some good news.  I am told that Appen Media is going to organize a legitimate give-and-take debate . . . the sort of debate that Mohrig does not want and cannot win . . . I predict Mohrig will be a no-show.  The real debate, sponsored by Appen, is scheduled for October 4^th at St. Aidan’s Church at 7 pm.

PART 2: Even More Fakery – Posted October 1st (a continuation of the above story . . . just when you thought it couldn’t get more dishonest . . . )

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advocating For Campaign Integrity,

Tim

Note 1:  In fairness to Ms. Dubin or Ms. Gwyn (or whatever name she is using this week), in the past, Ms. Dubin has organized what I am told were legitimate candidate forums/debates.

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

This blog post is a follow-up to my post published last night. Attached (at the bottom of this post) is the long-form version of last night’s post. The attached pdf provides the full sequence of emails (with contextual commentary) among city council and the city manager. It gives a full accounting of the latest scandal swirling around Council Member Rick Mohrig. It is fascinating reading. It provides deep insight into Rick Mohrig’s character (or lack thereof). Through a series of emails, both Council Member Carol Cookerly and the City Manager Krokoff expose Rick Mohrig’s dissembling and dishonest misbehavior relating to potential misuse of city resources; a “strategic planning” meeting with poll workers; and computer hacking allegations. So far, no evidence of hacking has been found . . . and Mohrig refuses to answer a simple yes/no question (asked 4 times of him) about whether a meeting with poll workers did actually occur. Mohrig has now gone radio-silent.

Advocating for Elections Integrity,

Tim

Note 1:  I want to be clear that my intention is not to malign the poll workers whose home was identified in the meeting invitation.  The fault in this situation falls 100% on Rick Mohrig.

Feeling Mohrig scandal fatigue?  I can’t blame you.  Every week, there are new incidents of wrongdoing by Council Member Rick Mohrig . . . misconduct involving dishonesty, non-transparency, and lack of accountability . . . egregious transgressions that are undermining fundamental trust and confidence in Milton City government.  And with the latest peccadillo, the unscrupulousness in Milton is being taken to new lows.  The political campaign is bringing out the worst in Mohrig.  However, in this blog post, I am going to let others speak . . . namely, Council Member Carol Cookerly and City Manager Steve Krokoff.  I will only provide context sufficient to understand their emails.

On September 5^th, a calendar invitation was sent from Rick Mohrig’s city email account about a September 7^th Mohrig “strategic planning” meeting at the home of two poll workers—one an elections clerk and the other a vote tabulator.  Mohrig is seemingly using city email and a city-provided computer for political purposes—an ethics violation.  However, the bigger problem involves meeting with poll workers.  Considering Mohrig’s past elections interference, one might think he would be more careful about even the appearance of impropriety . . . the optics of meeting with poll workers are clearly awful.  (BTW, the two poll workers have resigned.)  In response to questions about his emailed meeting invitation, Mohrig is claiming the city’s information systems and/or his city computer were hacked.  The City has expended significant resources to investigate both its systems and Mohrig’s city-provided tablet computer . . . and found no evidence whatsoever of hacking.  The obvious and dispositive question that is being asked (directly by Cookerly and more subtly by City Manager Krokoff) is whether the subject meeting actually occurred.  Eleven days have passed since the meeting invitation was issued and Mohrig has yet to answer this simple yes/no question.  (And Mohrig has been cagey in intimating that he might not have known the poll workers were actually poll workers.)  At this point, considering his carefully parsed answers to a simple yes/no question, I can only surmise that Mohrig is worried about self-incrimination.  Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive . . .

After several back-and-forth emails (copying council and the city manager), an exasperated Cookerly—tired of Mohrig’s evasiveness—sends a final withering blast at Mohrig.  Cookerly articulates serious ethical issues better than I ever could, so enough of context.  Following is Cookerly’s email where she decisively trumps Mohrig in his lame game of cat-and-mouse.  Game, set, match . . . Cookerly.

An exasperated City Manager Krokoff also, but more subtly, outmaneuvers Mohrig.  He clearly believes that Mohrig’s story does not hold water.  He refuses to allocate any more resources to what he plainly perceives as a highly suspicious allegation of hacking.  He firmly, but more diplomatically, poses Cookerly’s question to Mohrig about whether the subject meeting occurred, stating that he will not “authorize any further allocation of resources to delve into this issue” unless Mohrig asserts he “has no connection to” the poll workers and Mohrig “did not intend to schedule or attend a meeting as indicated in the meeting invite.”  Following is City Manager Krokoff’s email to Mohrig:

Remember, just a few days earlier, Krokoff admonished Mohrig about circumventing Krokoff and directing city employees (in violation of the City Charter) in what might be “misconstrued as an attempt to use government authority to suppress a political opponent.”  I believe any reasonable citizen would certainly construe Morhig’s use of city resources (email and computer) and authority (directing city staff to pull up campaign signs) as unethical abuse of power.  Following is a link to my blog post about Mohrig’s unethical direction of staff: 
Mohrig Violates City Charter By Directing Staff . . . Using “Governmental Authority To Suppress a Political Opponent” . . . Read City Manager’s Admonition and Advisory Memo to Staff. 

This blog has documented multiple instances of Mohrig’s disrespectful and improper actions toward city staff, including disrespecting and excluding staff members assigned to Milton’s Election Feasibility Committee.  Click following link:  Latest Investigation Shows Mohrig Pushed Aside City Staff and Suppressed Elections Findings . . . Violating Committee Standards . . . To Advance His Propagandistic Election Agenda

Citizens, it is time to restore integrity and just plain sanity to city government.  Mohrig has been allowed to run amuck in our city government for nearly two years . . . with detrimental effects on the city’s strategic priorities (which are being ignored) and damage to the city’s image.  Weekly, there is bad news in the media about Milton’s government . . . and usually Mohrig is at the center of this bad publicity.  It is past time to show Mohrig the door.

(At the bottom of this post, I provide a detailed sequencing, with commentary, of the emails among council members and the City Manager.)

Advocating for Election Integrity,

Tim

Note 1:  I want to be clear that my intention is not to malign the poll workers whose home was identified in the meeting invitation.  The fault in this situation falls 100% on Rick Mohrig.

Note 2: I have never met Council Member Cookerly nor ever had any communications with her on this topic or any other topic (except for emails sent to groups of city council members on their city emails).

Working from the outside, using Open Records Requests (ORR), my visibility into Milton government is sometimes limited.  However, due to my long and deep experience with local government since 2015, I am usually able to connect enough dots to provide readers a good sense of what is happening behind the city government curtain.  However, I assume . . . and readers should also assume . . . that the real situation is usually worse (not better) than can be discerned from the outside, not unlike the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  I assumed this was the case with Milton’s election initiative . . . that it was even more corrupted than it seemed . . . most of the iceberg was below the surface and unseen.  And with each ORR I submit, this is confirmed . . . Milton’s elections story becomes ever more unseemly . . . more of the iceberg is revealed.  Thankfully, we are finally getting a rare insider’s view of Milton’s elections project . . .  and it is coming from the top executive in Milton City government: City Manager Krokoff.  It is not only confirmatory but is actually worse than even I believed.  I suppose Krokoff has become fed up with the “revisionist history” (his words), especially relating to the mistreatment of his staff.  Read on . . .

Based (I suppose) on my investigation into the suppressed draft of the staff’s Election Feasibility Committee (EFC) report, Mayor Jamison inquired about why Council and the public were not presented with staff’s draft EFC report.  (See below email from the mayor to City Manager Krokoff). 

You can refer to my blog post from August 25^th for more details about the withholding of this staff report and the disrespectful marginalization of staff.  Click on the following link: Latest Investigation Shows Mohrig Pushed Aside City Staff and Suppressed Elections Findings . . . Violating Committee Standards . . . To Advance His Propagandistic Election Agenda

City Manager Krokoff’s response is illuminating and exposes an elections initiative more biased, more dishonest, more non-transparent, and more dysfunctional than I was able to discover through my Open Records Requests.  Krokoff’s insider perspective confirms my assertions in earlier blog posts . . . and then some.  Following are the main points from Krokoff’s email response (including direct excerpts in quotes):

• Staff Marginalization/Exclusion.  The partisan committee members—two council members and 2 partisan activists—concluded that “the information provided by staff did not warrant inclusion.”  Krokoff confirms that staff members were criticized, marginalized, and eventually entirely excluded.
• Revisionist History.  The partisan committee members have created a “revisionist history” that is exposed by “simple review of meeting recordings and public comments.”
• Unsuitable/Irregular Committee Composition.  “Early concerns about its composition . . . were ultimately unheeded.”  
• Strong Ideological Bias.  Some EFC members “entered the process with preconceived notions” such that the “endeavor seemed more like a justification exercise than a true feasibility assessment.”  This was evidenced when staff “tried to present factual information but were consistently rebuffed.”  There was a “reluctance to provide an unbiased assessment to city council” due to the “committee’s ideological standpoint.”  For more information about the creation and operations (some secret and undocumented) of the EFC, click on the following July 16^th post link:  Election Interference in Milton (Part 1):  The Election Feasibility Committee . . . Lack of Transparency, Expertise, and Non-Partisanship
• Poor Treatment of Staff.  For staff, participation was “negative” and “distressing and demoralizing.”
• Constant Post-EFC Interference.  After the EFC was disbanded, “A subset of the committee members remained steadfast in their efforts to sway council” such that they “openly challenged our differing recommendations in a harsh manner, as if it was inappropriate to disagree . . . or offer alternatives.”  Refer to my blog post from July 17^th for more details about continued interference from EFC members once the EFC had disbanded:  Election Interference (Part 2):  Backroom Tampering in Hiring and Work of Milton’s Election Consultant
• Excessive Partisan Activist Influence and Overly Compliant Council.  “Strong comments from an outspoken group appeared to resonate with certain Council members” such that they “seemed ready to accept the committee’s findings without hesitation.”
• Tampering in Election Consultant Hiring.  Pressure from Mohrig “escalated” so that he was “insisting that I interview his preferred candidate.”  The “unsettling dialogue at Council meetings” caused “qualified candidates” to withdraw so the Vernetta Nuriddan “emerged as the sole option.”  Due to the “ongoing influence of the committee . . . and disregard for staff research, I opted to involve that candidate.”

The City Manager’s assessment is damning.  I appreciate his candor.  Krokoff is especially credible because he does not really have a dog-in-the-fight.  In fact, his inclinations likely militate against his being so direct and specific in his criticism, as such criticism certainly and uncomfortably puts him in the crosshairs of certain council members and hyper-partisans in Milton.  At this point (with the EFC finally in the rearview mirror and no longer interfering), you could strongly argue he has little to gain from these revelations.  (I do know that Krokoff is protective of his people, and clearly they were treated shabbily by the four partisan EFC members.)

There is a lot going on here.  The summary above encapsulates the many and serious EFC issues.  However, for those readers who want to delve deeper into the elections fiasco, I offer additional insights below that complete some blanks in Krokoff’s comments, clarify certain points, or else provide more detail.  Following is a paragraph-by-paragraph commentary.

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

Krokoff confirms that the partisan staff members—two council members and 2 hyper-partisan activists—concluded that “the information provided by staff did not warrant inclusion.”  Translation:  Certain critical information was withheld from the public and council—for example, an excellent 7-point risk analysis and staff costs in the business case.  Non-inclusion of such essential information (that did not support a partisan narrative) provides proof of the Krokoff’s assertion of bias in the four non-staff committee members.  As revealed later in his email, non-staff members’ rejection of the staff draft was indicative of a long pattern of criticism, marginalization, and disrespect for the city staff committee members.

You can refer to my blog post from August 25^th for more details about the withholding of this staff report and the marginalization of staff.  Click on the following link. Latest Investigation Shows Mohrig Pushed Aside City Staff and Suppressed Elections Findings . . . Violating Committee Standards . . . To Advance His Propagandistic Election Agenda

Krokoff asserts there was “a revisionist history that has pervaded this process.”  He states that one merely needs to review the council meeting recordings and public comments to draw this conclusion.  I have watched all the council meeting videos and agree with Krokoff’s assessment. Pervaded is a strong term that I also agree with.  Both Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore are still pitching a narrative that just doesn’t pass the BS test.  For example, at the last council meeting, Moore again falsely asserted that the elections initiative was purely about cost savings, when the evidence clearly shows the chief drivers were election integrity (and more specifically avenging the alleged stolen 2020 presidential election) and Fulton County’s competence (or lack thereof) in administering elections.

About the committee Krokoff states “early concerns about its composition . . . were ultimately unheeded.” Krokoff is not specific about those concerns.  However, these concerns are several and obvious.  First, the committee was not formed according to Milton’s rules for committee formation, where each council member appoints a member.  Rather, this committee was oddly comprised of 2 staff, 2 appointed members of the community, and 2 council members.  Second, it is odd and (I would contend) unethical for council members to design their own elections.  What is the justification for including any council members on the committee?  No other city committees—past or present—have ever included council members as voting members.  In fact, the City Charter prohibits council members from appointment to committees.  Third, all non-staff members were strongly partisan.  An elections feasibility assessment should have been a non-partisan exercise.  And if not, then it should have been bipartisan, with representation from both sides of the political spectrum.  Fourth, the committee members generally lacked elections expertise/experience; four members had no experience and the other two had limited experience.

Krokoff is (rightfully) highly critical of the partisan bias of the non-staff committee members, mentioning their partiality several times in his email.  He states that some EFC members “entered the process with preconceived notions” such that the “endeavor seemed more like a justification exercise than a true feasibility assessment.”  This was evidenced when staff “tried to present factual information but were consistently rebuffed.”  There was a “reluctance to provide an unbiased assessment to city council” due to the “committee’s ideological standpoint.”  This is a damning (but correct) judgment of the committee’s damn-the-truth-full-speed-ahead approach.  Quite simply, the EFC’s recommendations were a forgone conclusion . . . a case of I’ve-made-up-my-mind-so-don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts.  Accordingly, the EFC meetings that were public (some were not) were purely political theatre.

For more information about the creation and conduct (some secret and undocumented) of the EFC, click on the following July 16^th post link:  Election Interference in Milton (Part 1):  The Election Feasibility Committee . . . Lack of Transparency, Expertise, and Non-Partisanship

I understand Krokoff’s concerns about potential exorbitant Fulton County costs to administer Milton’s municipal elections, although it should be noted that FuCo’s costs were eventually estimated at $6.93 per registered voter and capped its maximum cost at $7.62 per registered voter. 

Despite the shift to “prudent planning,” it did not “ease the negative experience” of a biased committee that criticized, disrespected and marginalized staff.  However, given “the presence of two City Council members and two highly influential community members,” Krokoff determined he “lacked the necessary support to counter this narrative.”  Citizens, this is exactly WHY the City Charter prohibits council member appointment to committees.

Krokoff references the “committee’s ideological standpoint” in the context of their continued interference in the elections design and planning.  Krokoff believed that after the EFC disbanded, its partisan members would back off and allow staff to continue the committee’s work unhindered.  He was wrong.  After the EFC was disbanded, Krokoff states that “a subset of the committee members remained steadfast in their efforts to sway council” such that they “openly challenged our differing recommendations in a harsh manner, as if it was inappropriate to disagree . . . or offer alternatives.”  Krokoff also references the undue influence of Milton’s extreme right-wing fringe, stating:  “Strong comments from an outspoken group appeared to resonate with certain Council members” who “seemed ready to accept the committee’s findings without hesitation” . . . or, I might add, any reasonable scrutiny.

The interference extends to the hiring of Milton’s election consultant.  Krokoff states that interference “escalated” so that Mohrig was “insisting that I interview his preferred candidate.”  The other “qualified candidates withdrew due to unsettling dialogue at Council meetings,” so that Nuriddan, who did not meet “the minimum qualifications,” became the “sole option.”  Krokoff felt he had no option but to hire Nuriddin . . . especially after Mohrig and Moore effectively vetoed his Krokoff’s proposal to early-hire poll managers and direct them to complete Milton’s election planning and design.

Refer to my blog post from July 17^th for more details about continued interference from EFC members once the EFC has disbanded:  Election Interference (Part 2):  Backroom Tampering in Hiring and Work of Milton’s Election Consultant

Mr. Krokoff’s honest assessment of many (not all) aspects of the EFC confirms an elections design and planning process that was highly dysfunctional.  The results were predictable:  demoralized staff; vastly overestimated costs savings; a flawed and discriminatory election design; intentional omission of any risk assessment; wasted time, resources, and money; reduced and unequal voter access; poorly sourced/substantiated recommendations; lack of transparency; eroding public trust and confidence; unnecessary community acrimony; and constant partisan interference in post-EFC planning.

Advocating to Election Integrity and Voter Rights,

Tim

Note:  Attached (in reverse chronological order) are Mayor Jamison’s initial email inquiry and City Manager Krokoff’s response (in its entirety).  As always, I provide all source materials so you can draw your own conclusions.  I have nothing to hide . . . you be the judge.

The above screen shot is from Milton’s city charter (the municipal equivalent of the US Constitution) and clearly states that city council members should deal with city employees solely through the city manager.  This is Good Governance 101.  However, certain council members feel that they are above the law . . . and often that they are the law.  Rick Mohrig is one such rogue council member who routinely directs staff. 

Recently, Mohrig threw a temper tantrum over alleged irregularities in his election opponent’s placement of campaign signs . . . blowing up the Community Development Director’s phone.  Following is an email from Mohrig to the City Manager and the City Manager’s email response.  City Manager Krokoff does not mince words and blasts Mohrig with his response.  Mr. Krokoff is usually quite diplomatic in his interactions with council (as collectively, council is his boss), but clearly in this situation, Krokoff had more than enough of Mr. Mohrig’s interference with staff.  Krokoff states that this episode is just one of many meddling incidents over the years involving Mohrig.  However, in this case, Mohrig’s meddling could be interpreted as, Krokoff states . . .  “an attempt to use governmental authority to suppress a political opponent.”  In addition to his blunt email, Krokoff sent an equally blunt memo to staff reiterating, in very specific terms, prohibitions against council members interfering in daily city operations.  The memo is attached with the more important parts highlighted in yellow.

Typically, I tease apart and explain the documents that I use to support my blog posts.  However, in this case, the City Manager’s sharp response (and his memo to staff) are concise and explain Mohrig’s misbehavior better than I could ever explain it.  Accordingly, I provide both Mohrig’s initial email and the City Manager’s response (in reverse chronological order).  You be the judge.  Is Mohrig someone who really should be representing citizens interests on council?  Is he committed to ethics?  Is he committed to upholding the law?  Is this any way to treat staff?

As Krokoff states, Mohrig has a long and dismal record of improper interactions with staff—some quite disrespectful and dismissive.  Readers might recall that I recently wrote about how Council Member Mohrig–and the other partisan members of the Election Feasibility Committee (EFC)–shunted aside city staff EFC members.  The four partisan members deleted important details that were contained in an EFC draft report authored by Deputy City Manager Inglis.  This included an essential 1) discussion of election risks and 2) staff costs in the elections business case.  Following is a link to my blog post: 

Latest Investigation Shows Mohrig Pushed Aside City Staff and Suppressed Elections Findings . . . Violating Committee Standards . . . To Advance His Propagandistic Election Agenda

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim

Note:  As always, I am attaching the source materials.  I do this so that you can draw your own conclusions.  Attached are 1) the email exchange between Krokoff and Mohrig and 2) the memo sent by the City Manager to elected officials and city staff.

(Go to Bits & Pieces for more details about how Milton arrived at this troubling state of affairs. Click on the following link: Bits & Pieces)

In the past week, Milton’s Mayor Jamison has received explicit death threats to himself and his family.  Within this post are the text messages and excerpts from the police report, which includes details of a phone call to Jamison.

Law enforcement has been engaged.  An investigation has been initiated.

Before I get to the details, I urge anyone with pertinent information to immediately contact the Milton Police Department.  If you have seen something or have heard something . . . say something.  If in doubt, err on the side of caution and call the Milton police.

The threats began with texts sent to Mayor Jamison on the evening of September 2, 2023.  This occurred on the same day that Mayor Jamison (and former Mayor Lockwood) endorsed Council Member Carol Cookerly for re-election.  That’s no coincidence.  See texts below:

Fast forward to September 6^th.  Less than half an hour before city council’s meeting (again no coincidence), two additional texts were sent to Mayor Jamison.  My assumption is that the texter was attempting to coerce the mayor into not chairing the evening council meeting.  See texts below:

Shortly after receiving the first two texts, Mayor Jamison received a phone call threatening to kill him.  Coincidentally, Police Chief Austin was in the room.  The mayor passed the phone to Chief Austin and the caller again repeated the death threat to Chief Austin.  Following is the excerpt from the police report about the phone call.  (I am including the full redacted police report at the end of this blog post.)

Fast forward (about a half hour) to the start of the city council meeting, with Mayor Jamison presiding.  A third text stating “You fucked up” was sent during the council meeting . . . this was the texter’s answer (I assume) to the mayor proceeding with chairing the Milton City Council meeting.  I would infer that the caller was watching council’s live-streamed meeting (or was attending in person).  The text was sent at 6:01 pm . . . just 1 minute after the council meeting commenced. See text below:

When I googled the two phone numbers used to text/call, half a dozen websites appeared—all with Russian domains.  I dared not click on the websites.  However, clearly the texter/caller has found a way (probably on the Dark Web) to send anonymous texts and to make anonymous phone calls that likely will be difficult to trace.  Following are two examples from my Google searches:

These threats of violence to elected officials are a wake-up call to all rational and law-abiding citizens.  Over the past 2 years, Milton has seen the emergence of unchecked extreme political partisanship . . . the effects of which have steadily and dramatically increased for 2+ years . . . to the point where death threats are now being made.  In late May, I became so alarmed by what I was witnessing in Milton that I began using my blog to warn citizens and the Milton’s city government about the clear-and-present dangers that I perceived. (Go to Bits & Pieces for more details about this story and other local government topics.)

The bitter antidote to this partisan venom is for Milton’s city government, Milton’s politicians, and partisan leaders to finally and unequivocally condemn these threats to our fundamental rights and to our democracy . . . threats that have been escalating unchecked for over 2 years.  This will take courage from the Milton city government, Milton’s politicians, and partisan leaders.  Most importantly, it is time for Miltonites from across the political spectrum to unite in opposition to these threats.  We must return to non-partisanship in Milton’s government and elections.

I urge Milton City Council to screw up their courage and to call a special called council session to approve an unambiguous and strong denunciation of political violence and threats of such violence.  Furthermore, the City should adopt strong measures to mitigate the threat.  Half-measures will not suffice.  Right now, courage is much needed in our city government.

I will continue to provide analysis and comments on this troubling turn of events, including the reactions and responses of Milton’s government and Milton’s political class.  Please return to the blog for updates. You can also go to the Bits & Pieces page for a more detailed account of how Milton arrived at this sad state of affairs.

Advocating Against Political Extremism in Milton,

Tim

Note:  I called the mayor upon hearing about the threats to him and his family.  He graciously provided me with the (redacted) police report and the text messages in hopes that the blog’s readers might be helpful in apprehending the perpetrators(s).

From Mohrig’s campaign website:

The above screen shot is from Council Member Rick Mohrig’s campaign website.  And I don’t want to mince words.  Mohrig’s assertion (in the first sentence) that “In 2016, I was the deciding vote (from my hospital bed, not kidding) to ensure any new lots in Milton are 1 acre+” is a blatant and unequivocal lie.  And the hundreds of citizens that fought this rezoning know he is a LIAR. In fact, just the opposite is true. Mohrig voted initially voted FOR the rezoning he is referencing. Mohrig was the deciding vote FOR the sewer extension and FOR the rezoning to higher density. But for his vote, the rezoning would have been dead. Instead, Mayor Lockwood had to veto the rezoning so that the rezoning had to come again before Council. After the mayor’s veto and because of overwhelming public outcry, Mohrig did eventually reverse his original vote FOR the Ebenezer rezoning. Following is the story with documentation (photos, videos, and excerpts from the Milton Herald).

I was a leader of the opposition to the Ebenezer rezoning to higher density cluster housing enabled by a private packaged community sewer system.  In fact, in opposition to the rezoning, I started the Milton Coalition Blog and posted 2 petitions.  And I can assure you that Rick Mohrig was strongly in favor of the rezoning and voted FOR the rezoning on April 25, 2016.  Following is the excerpt from the Milton Herald about the rezoning.  Notice that only Mayor Joe Lockwood and Council Member Burt Hewitt voted against the rezoning; Mohrig voted FOR the rezoning. And in fact, had Mohrig not voted FOR the rezoning, the rezoning would have failed on a 3-3 vote; a tie results in denial of the measure being voted upon. Because of Mohrig, as you will read further on, this issue was kept in play, resulting in a huge battle that divided the community.

Following is a photo of Mohrig pusillanimously voting for approval of the rezoning.  You can also view a video of his vote.  Use the following link and advance to 6:20:28

The only reason that the issue returned to council was because Joe Lockwood courageously vetoed the ordinance (ostensibly) on procedural grounds (but in reality to give citizens another chance to fight the rezoning).  (This was Lockwood’s second and last veto while he was mayor for 15 years.)  Following is a screenshot from the Milton Herald about the veto and the approval of another rezoning hearing scheduled for June 20, 2016. 

It was at this time that I started a new Milton Coalition blog (to replace a previous single-issue blog), and I posted a second petition that eventually garnered over 1900 signatures.  Click here to go to the petition:  Milton Coalition Petition.  For this second hearing, we brought the full force of the community down on Mohrig.  Many hundreds of people wrote letters against the rezoning.  So many people showed up in opposition that a holding room with a video monitor was established in the City Hall lobby for the many people that showed up and weren’t allowed into council chambers because of capacity limits.  Ninety-nine citizens—the most I’ve seen in my 8 years of involvement in city politics—signed up to speak in opposition.  More than 90% of nearby residents signed a petition against the rezoning.  (Note:  Milton’s Community Development also recommended denial and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial.)  So yes, overwhelming citizen (and staff and Planning Commission) opposition coerced Mohrig to reverse himself and vote against the rezoning the second time it came before council.  BTW, Mohrig also lies at his campaign website when he states that he was the deciding vote against the rezoning.  Had he voted again for the rezoning, it still would NOT have passed on a 3-3 vote.  A tie votes results in denial, not approval.  You would think someone who had been on council for over a decade would know that . . . unfortunately, like his reversal, this inconvenient fact about council voting protocols does not fit Mohrig’s heroic narrative about himself. Following is an excerpt from the Milton Herald, confirming that Mohrig “switched” his vote in the second hearing, reversing the “earlier approval.”

So what happened with the Ebenezer property?  At various times, under AG-1 zoning rules, the Sweet Apple developer claimed the property could support 45 to 55 homes (although it was definitively proved that percolation tests for individual septic systems would not support these numbers of homes).  Well, it turns out that the site plan (under AG-1 zoning) for Sweet Apple shows only 34 home sites, compelling evidence that the proposed Sweet Apple cluster-home subdivision would have entailed a 32% to 62% increase in density (vs. AG-1 zoning density).  Imagine such a density increase metastasizing across Milton through similar rezonings and the resulting deleterious effects (e.g., increased traffic congestion; overcrowded schools).  Following is the actual AG-1 Ebenezer build-out plan.  Note that trails and green space (without septic drip lines that had been proposed under the cluster home plan) were incoporated.

Following is a more in-depth blog post that I wrote about the Ebenezer rezoning:

City Council Candidates Have a Lot of Studying To Do . . . Start with the CSO

So NO, Mohrig is NOT a protector of Milton from overdevelopment as he claims.  He is not a protector of Milton’s quality of life.  Quite the opposite.  Mohrig has often lined up with developers against citizens.  In fact, Mohrig voted FOR the very last sewer extension approved by council in Milton, doubling the density over what would have been allowed without sewer.  Following is a link to a blog post I just wrote on Mohrig’s vote FOR sewer extension:  Sewer Creep:  Mohrig Touches Third Rail in Milton Politics and Will Finally Pay the Price in 2023 Elections  Yes, facts are indeed stubborn things.

Mohrig is a serial and audacious liar.  The Ebenezer rezoning is similar to the recent controversy over the District 3 polling location.  Mr. Mohrig adamantly opposed a polling location for his own district (District 3), citing an additional and paltry $4,500 in costs.  Only through overwhelming public pressure and shaming did Mohrig again (like the Ebenezer rezoning) reverse his initial vote AGAINST the District 3 voting location.  (I suppose the Orwellian Mohrig might also try rewriting the elections chapter of Milton’s history.)

Miltonites, we need a District 3 representative that does not have be coerced into doing the RIGHT thing for his constituents . . . a representative that chooses citizens over special interests, like developers and Milton’s lunatic fringe.

Advocating for Truth in Politics,

Tim

Note:  As always, I am providing the source materials for my blog post (in the order in which they appeared in the Milton Herald), so readers can draw their own conclusions:

Council Approves Rezoning and Community Septic on Ebenezer Road

Mayor Lockwood Vetoes Ebenezer Rezoning

Council To Revisit Ebenezer Rezoning

Council Reverses and Denies Ebenezer Rezoning

Uniting the Community with Positive Land Use Solutions – Tim Becker Editorial

Ebenezer Road Saga Ends With No Fanfare . . . Recap of Events Including Mohrig Flip-Flop

Sewer extension is the third rail in Milton politics.  Council Member Rick Mohrig has voted multiple times for sewer extension in Milton.  In 2023, Mohrig will finally pay the price for these votes.  The subject of this post is Mohrig’s most recent vote for sewer extension where Mohrig ignored:

• strong and universal community opposition
• staff’s recommendation against extending sewer,
• the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation against sewer extension
• the subject property’s AG-1 designation in Milton’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), which had just been approved in late 2016.  The CLUP committee (composed of 17 members) unanimously denied changing the land use designation (for this property) to higher density zoning.

First, some context . . .

Since Milton’s founding, land use has been the most important and most contentious issue in Milton.  Miltonites love the natural beauty of their city—the horse farms, the trees, the four board fences, the historic barns—and want to preserve and protect it.  One underlying reason for Milton’s beauty is its low density of homes, which has to do with Milton’s sewer system being mostly confined to Crabapple and the Highway 9-Windward-Deerfield area.  Most homes in Milton have septic systems, which require percolation fields.  In Milton, this means homes must be on 1+ acres of land.  Unfortunately, over the years, special interests (i.e. developers) have successfully lobbied for extending sewer in Milton . . . and with sewer comes density . . . and with density comes urban problems, like traffic congestion, increased pollution, and overcrowded schools.  Despite vowing never to extend sewer, quite a few council members have gone back on their word and voted for higher density rezonings that extended sewer.  Rick Mohrig is one of Milton’s notorious promise-breaking, pro-sewer council members.  However, because Mohrig has run unopposed in the last 3 elections, he has escaped accountability . . . until NOW.  For the first time since 2011, a District 3 council race is competitive.  Phil Cranmer is challenging Rick Mohrig.

And yes, Rick Mohrig did explicitly promise never to extend sewer . . . and yes Mohrig did break his promise.  In 2007, in the only competitive race of his career (which he lost) Mohrig answered a series of questions at the (now defunct) Access Milton blog.  (His full response to all the questions is provided at the end of this post).  When asked about his priorities, Mohrig stated “Develop and pass our comprehensive land use map with citizen input to enforce and preserve the low-density, beautiful area we call Milton – 1 acre minimum in residential w/ no sewer extensions.”  See the following screenshot from the Access Milton blog:

However, Mohrig has voted multiple times to extend sewer.  In fact, the very last time that sewer was extended in Milton, Mohrig voted for it, breaking his promise and ignoring the Comprehensive Land Use map he vowed to “enforce.”  That vote is the subject of this blog post.

In early 2017, Fuqua & Associates applied for rezoning of a Hopewell Road property to higher density that included sewer extension.  See the following screenshot from the city council review packet:

This process began with Community Zoning Information and Public Participation meetings.  At these meetings, community opposition was strong and unanimous.  See below screenshot from City Council’s meeting review packet:

The rezoning then proceeded through the review process, including a courtesy review by the Design Review Board (with no vote), city Community Development staff review, and the Planning Commission review.  Again, opposition was unanimous.  Both Community Development and the Planning Commission (in a unanimous 6-0 vote) recommended denial of the rezoning and sewer extension.  See below screenshot from the city council review packet:

Milton’s Community Development included the following in the review packet to city council stating that the rezoning was “inconsistent with the City of Milton’s 2035 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map for Agricultural, Equestrian, and Estate Residential.”

On May 15, 2017, the rezoning finally came before city council.  Eight citizens (including myself and former council members Laura Bentley and Julie Bailey) spoke in opposition or had their opposition statements read into the record.  By extending sewer, the proposed rezoning doubled the density of the property, cramming 16 homes onto a property that would have only supported 7-8 homes with septic.  The hearing lasted nearly an hour and 45 minutes.  The motion to approve the re-zoning and sewer extension was approved by council, with Mohrig voting for the sewer extension.  Following is a photo of Mohrig meekly raising his hand to approve.

Following is a link to the video of the  rezoning hearing.  The hearing begins at 2:10:50 and the vote occurs around 3:53:35.

City Council Meeting: May 17, 2023

So despite strong and universal community opposition . . . and despite Community Development’s denial recommendation . . . and despite a unanimous Planning Commission denial recommendation . . . and despite being inconsistent with Milton’s land use map that Mohrig promised to uphold . . . and despite his promise never to extend sewer . . . Rick Mohrig voted to approve a rezoning and sewer extension that increased density twice what was allowed.

So my questions are very simple:  Can Rick Mohrig be trusted?  Will Rick Mohrig protect Milton from over-development?  Will Rick Mohrig honor his oath to uphold the law?  Will Rick Mohrig uphold Milton’s land use plan?  The Hopewell Road rezoning demonstrates clearly that the answer to all of these questions is NO.  Rick Mohrig has not and will not keep promises he makes to Milton’s voters.  Period.

Advocating for Trust in Government,

Tim

Following are links to other land-use posts that have been published at the blog. There are more posts that I will eventually add to this list, so please come back.

Variances Are a Four-letter Word in the 2021 District 1 Race

District 1 Candidates Need to Make Honest, Clear, and Specific Land-Use Commitments to Citizens

Variances in Milton (Part 1): Radical Departure From Law and Historical Practice.

What is Milton’s Biggest Industry? . . . and The Threat to Citizens’ Basic Right to Reasonable Enjoyment of Their Property