Read the below Paul Moore’s letter blasting Council Member Rick Mohrig about lack of ethics, backroom politics, non-transparency, and operating outside of the rules . . . and about the imperative to vote Mohrig out of office. I strongly agree on all counts. (This letter was posted by the Moore at a public political blog.)
Two versions of the letter are posted. The first version below redacts some names and other information to give you the full effect of Moore’s scathing criticism of Mohrig. The entire un-redacted letter is provided at the bottom.
Moore’s letter was written in 2007 when Moore was chairman of the Planning Commission. The letter was published at the popular (but now defunct) Access Milton blog just one day before the 2007 municipal elections. At the time Mohrig was running against Alan Tart in the only competitive race of Mohrig’s political career.
Previously, in 2006, Mohrig slithered onto council without any competition in Milton’s first-ever election. Based on Mohrig’s conduct while on council (i.e., the sort of stuff Moore mentions in his letter), Alan Tart challenged Mohrig in the 2007 election. Despite Mohrig running a very dirty campaign (including appeals to partisanship . . . which I believe he will try again in desperation), Mohrig was resoundingly defeated by Tart. Unfortunately, Mohrig returned to council through appointment (when a seat was vacated by Lance Large due to a job relocation) and then ran unopposed in 3 elections. We’ve now been stuck with Mohrig for over a decade and the lack of accountability at the ballot box shows in his poor performance and unethical conduct . . . and his general disconnectedness from the concerns of average Miltonites.
Why is this email important? For the past 2+ years, Moore and Mohrig have been joined at the hip and engaging in the same misbehavior that Moore describes in his 2007 letter: secret Election Feasibility Committee (EFC) meetings; backroom machinations in developing EFC recommendations and in hiring an elections consultant; Moore’s conviction on 3 ethics charges; intrusion into trivial HOA issues; etc.
In the period 2006 to at least 2017, Moore and Mohrig were bitter rivals. They were members of the two opposing factions that have been battling each other since Milton was founded. These factions spent more time fighting each other and advancing personal and special interests’ agendas than effecting citizens’ priorities. Dirty politics were the norm. Often it was positively middle school . . . silly non-stop drama. Neither side cared much about the rule of law and both sides promiscuously approved zoning variances. Regrettably, I was duped into helping the Moore-Bentley faction. However, I broke with Laura Bentley and Moore, when upon Bentley’s election, I witnessed Moore and Bentley resorting to same misbehavior they accused their rivals of engaging in . . . actually much worse misbehavior. That wasthe Old Reality (that Moore, Bentley, Mohrig, and Lisa Cauley longingly pine for). That was Milton 1.0.
I find it interesting that Milton’s two long-warring blocs are now aligning with each other. Politics certainly does make for strange bedfellows, but the Moore-Mohrig snuggle-up is the strangest I’ve ever witnessed in Milton’s political history. However, it makes sense in the context of power politics. Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven. Both of Milton’s ancient factions are so weakened that their mutual survival requires they become kissin’ cousins. It is a classic case of the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend. And in this case, the enemy is (positive) change in Milton . . . a third way forward that forever excludes Milton’s endlessly antagonistic and tiresome factions. Moore, Mohrig, Bentley, and Cauley are fighting a losing battle against the tides of change. Just like the real dinosaurs 65 million years, Milton’s political dinosaurs are doomed . . . a meteor of change has struck Milton . . .
. . . Phil Cranmer and Doug Hene offer a clean break with the past (that hopefully the remaining members of council will embrace). They offer a new generation of forward-thinking leaders with fresh ideas and strong moral compasses. Both are senior business executiveswho will bring much needed expertise and experience to council. Milton desperately needsPrincipled Leadership in Milton, characterized by respect for the rule of law, integrity, accountability, transparency, process rigor, fairness, courage, and a strategic mindset. No more wading into trivial HOA issues. No more shameful ethics problems. No more elections interference. No more extensions of sewer. No more hyper-partisanship. Now is the time for Milton 2.0. Citizens, that is the NEW REALITY. Out with the old, in with the new. Onward and upward Milton . . .
I love ending this post with the Navy’s Blue Angels and the Air Force’s Thunderbirds . . . a true team of rivals!
Yet another Open Records Request reveals dysfunction and dishonesty that has saturated Milton’s election initiative. For many months, I heard that good work had been done by the two staff members (the Deputy City Manager Inglis and the City Clerk Lowit) assigned to the Election Feasibility Committee (EFC) but this work had been deep-sixed by the four partisan EFC members. Finally, I decided to obtain the source documents, so I submitted an ORR seeking emails among the 6 members of the EFC for November – December 2022.
In a nutshell, Deputy City Manager Inglis developed a draft EFC report that was rejected by partisan members of the committee, who then pushed staff aside and developed their own report without staff input or consent . . . producing a biased, incomplete, poorly substantiated report that fit their partisan election narrative . . . and in the process, violated the rules for conduct of city committees.It gets worse . . . the council approval process was then manipulated 1) to minimize council and citizen scrutiny of the EFC’s report and 2) to rush council approval. So let’s get to the details . . .
On November 23, 2022, Deputy City Manager Inglissent a final report draft to the other EFC members. Ms. Inglis’ draft report seems well-written, fact-based, and objective. It includes an impressive 20-page spreadsheet that detailed and sourced costs. It also includes a risk assessment. However, Council Member Rick Mohrig and perhaps other EFC members did not approve of Ms. Inglis’ draft report. At this point, Mohrig cut EFC staff members out of the process; suppressed important committee findings that did not fit his propagandistic elections narrative; and tried to short-circuit the council/citizen review and approval process. On December 1, 2022 Mohrig wrote the following to City Manager Krokoff.
In the yellow-highlighted section, Mohrig clearly excludes staff committee members from further involvement. Mohrig states that he, Moore, (Lisa) Cauley, and (Mark) Amick are discussing how to move forward. The remainder of this email and subsequent emails demonstrate that staff committee members were excluded from further involvement. This is a serious breach of committee rules, which require public meetings where members can discuss and debate their approach and their findings/recommendations and approve (through a vote) what is presented to City Council and to citizens.Mohrig abuses his power as a council member and clearly overrides/circumvents committee protocols . . . and such power moves are likely one reason why Milton’s City Charter prohibits council members from appointment to committees.
In the green-highlighted and blue-highlighted sections, Mohrig lobbies for a council review and approval process that minimizes scrutiny of the EFC’s work and that fast-tracks approval. He argues for passing a resolution vs. an ordinance. An ordinance requires a first presentation, followed by a vote two weeks later. This two-step process for ordinances is mandated by law and is intended to prevent a law from being introduced and voted upon in a single meeting. It is a good governance practice meant to ensure sufficient public and legislative due diligence . . . exactly what Mohrig wants to avoid. With a resolution, Mohrig seems to think he can, in a single meeting, both present the EFC report and get council approval.This is dirty power politics at its worst. (For reasons I don’t know, Council deferred its vote on the resolution until December 19th.)
In the red-highlighted section, Mohrig pushes to suppress Inglis’ EFC report. It is important to understand that council was meeting on December 5 (just 4 days later) to consider the matter of Milton running its municipal elections. At this point, the EFC report should have been fully vetted and ready for distribution to council and citizens. It was not ready. However, to keep to schedule, Mohrig circumvents good process, excludes staff, and recklessly plunges ahead. Clearly, he disagrees with some of the findings and recommendations. However, rather than reconvene the committee to achieve consensus, Mohrig and his confederates reject Inglis’ report, disrespectfully exclude further staff involvement, and manufacture a strongly biased report that doesn’t reflect public and staff input . . . and that excludes/underestimates costs and omits all discussion of risks.
The 4 partisan committee members—Mohrig, Moore, Cauley, and Amick–now assume full control over the final EFC report. These four committee members use personal email addresses . . . even though 3 of the 4 have city emails. This is not allowed but they do it anyway . . . and it means that much of their work probably occurred behind the scenes. Staff’s first draft was substantially changed, yet there are almost no recorded communications among Mohrig, Moore, Cauley, and Amick regarding document changes. This either indicates 1) the report re-working was done in a backroom or 2) else there was little/no vetting of the report provided to council . . . neither speaks well of the committee’s due diligence. Clearly EFC staff members had no further input. Worse, the full committee never formally approves (through a vote) its findings and recommendations ( . . . a gross violation of committee protocols). This is confirmed in an email from City Manager Krokoff in response to Council Member Jacobus’s request for an advance copy: “The presentation was being prepared by the two volunteers on the committee and staff hasn’t seen it.”
So the first time that anyone—citizens, staff, or council–sees this important presentation is when Amick and Cauley actually present it to council. Amick and Cauley only provided their reports to the City after council’s meeting. Cauley’s business case was later provided (to citizens) in the December 19th city council packet; however, Amick’s operational presentation was NEVER provided to citizens. This is NOT the transparency citizens deserve regarding such an important matter.
In comparing Inglis’ draft final report to Cauley and Amick’s presentations, it is clear that substantial changes were made. The final report was not approved by the entire EFC or discussed in a public meeting with opportunities for community input. After 6 months of committee work and at least 6 public meetings, it seems Moore and Morhig granted Cauley and Amick broad discretion to present whatever they wanted—citizens, staff committee members, and transparency be damned.
A few deletions from Inglis’ report did catch my eye . . .
First, costs for an elections superintendent were deleted. In fact, no city staff costs are included in Cauley’s elections business case. Apparently staff are free. This is a large, glaring—and it seems intentional—oversight. It is also evidence of a strong EFC disposition to both ignore and underestimate costs. Since Cauley’s business case was presented, estimated elections costs have steadily and substantially risen . . . and are now 57% higher than original estimatesand still rising . . . and this is without including any city staff costs.
Second and more troubling, partisan committee members deleted all discussion of risks inherent in Milton running its elections. Inglis’ report identified 7 distinct risks, including potential voter disenfranchisement. However, none of this risk discussion is included in the final EFC report. Apparently, a sober assessment of risks did not fit the hugely hyped partisan narrative being pushed by Mohrig and his confederates.
The development of the EFC’s final report provides yet another example of an EFC that ran amuck and consistently operated far outside the norms and standards for good governance. From its inception, Milton’s election initiative has been an unmitigated disaster. It has been thoroughly infused with incompetence, dishonesty, secrecy, partisanship, and unfairness. The elections initiative is so tainted at this point that the only remedy is to hit the reset button and start over (perhaps leveraging some of the work already completed).
Advocating for Election Integrity and Voting Rights,
Tim
Note: Don’t forget about my Bits & Pieces page where I provide more detail for readers that want to dig deeper into local politics and government. Link: Bits & Pieces
Note: As always, I am providing full access to my source materialsso that readers can draw their own conclusions. Following is the link to the response to my ORR. Use PRR-281-2023 and security key 351818 to retrieve the documents. You can find Inglis’ report and spreadsheet; Cauley’s business case; and Amick’s operational recommendations. Bon Appetit . . . https://miltonga.justfoia.com/publicportal/home/track
On Monday night, City Council saved the best for last. At the conclusion of city council’s meeting, two items concerning elections were raised. The first item was the termination of Milton’s elections consultant, Vernetta Nuriddan, with speeches by both Ms. Nuriddan and partisan activist Lisa Cauley . . . both of which were odd in their own ways. The second item was a speech by Council Member Rick Mohrig from the council dais where he dishonestly and feebly defended the indefensible actions of Milton’s Elections Feasibility Committee (EFC).
Termination of Milton’s Election Consultant (and Hiring of Another Consultant). Milton’s long and shameful elections saga took another embarrassing turn on Monday night. City Council’s last agenda item was the termination of Milton’s elections consultant and the hiring of another elections consultant. The background to this story was provided in my previous post:
I attended last night’s city council meeting. And surprise of surprises . . . Ms. Nuriddan showed up to contest her termination; to question the qualifications of her successor; and to (politely) blast the City for its elections planning and preparations. Apparently, Nuriddan was only made aware (by “neighbors” in Milton) of her termination just hours earlier (at 4:15pm). (This lack of notification shows a lack of professionalism and courtesy by the City and frankly strikes me as slimy.) Ms. Nuriddan was cut off when she exceeded the 5-minute time limit for public comment. I would have enjoyed hearing more; it was juicy stuff. Nuriddan alleged numerous election irregularities in her comments. Although terminated for convenience (vs. cause), clearly the city had (perhaps justified) concerns about Ms. Nuriddan’s performance. I do not think the City has heard the last from Ms. Nuriddan. Clearly, Ms. Nuriddan is not pleased with the City. I suspect there will be additional chapters in this election consultant story that will bring further embarrassment to the City and that unfortunately fit into a much bigger picture of elections dishonesty, incompetence, non-transparency, and hyper-partisanship at the City.
Following is a detailed and insightful Milton Herald story by Amber Perry about last night’s contract termination:
Lisa Cauley, a partisan activist and EFC member, also appeared before council to protest Ms. Nuriddan’s termination and to blast city staff, especially the City Manager, for their handling of this situation. However, I do not want to waste many pixels on Ms. Cauley. Suffice to say that Ms. Cauley seems increasingly isolated and marginalized. She has been demoted to just an ordinary private citizen (like the rest of us). Cauley’s elections project is falling apart and she is helpless to do anything about it. Karma! Sweet Karma!
After public comment and without discussion, Nuriddan’s termination was put to a vote and passed unanimously. Both Moore and Mohrig, who strongly pressured Krokoff and Nuriddan into a consulting contract, uttered not a peep in support of Nuriddan (and Cauley). (Note: Fulton County Commissioner Bridget Thorne will also have to answer for her endorsement of Nuriddan.) Not fully recovered from their humiliating defeat over the addition of a District 3 voting location, Moore and Mohrig were dealt another body blow to their reputations with Ms. Nuriddan’s firing.
Mohrig’s Lame and Untruthful Defense of the EFC’s Clandestine Conduct.In the wake of Ms. Nurridan’s termination, you would have thought Council Member Rick Mohrig might have been chastened and perhaps slunk out of council chambers with his tail between his legs. Instead, an unbowed and unhinged Mohrig followed Milton’s last agenda item with an eight-minute prepared statement rationalizing the clandestine workings of the EFC. Clearly, the Milton Herald and I have struck a nerve with Council Member Mohrig. I am pleased. Through mostly self-inflicted injuries, Mohrig is mortally wounded. Punch-drunk, the bobbing-and-weaving Mohrig is staggering in Milton’s political arena swinging wildly at his opponents. Last night, Mohrig demonstrated yet again that he is untethered from ethics, citizens’ concerns, and political reality. From the comfortable safety of the council pulpit, the pusillanimous Mohrig lashed out at his critics.
Mohrig’s main purpose in his comments was to refute my assertions that the EFC operated in secret . . . violating Georgia’s Open Meetings and Open Records Act and other laws governing Milton’s committees. Mohrig’s main justification for the EFC’s clandestine activities is that Milton’s EFC was initially an “informal” committee and therefore exempt from Milton (and sometimes Georgia) lawsgoverning the formation and operation of committees. For example, Mr. Mohrig acknowledges that the EFC did meet behind closed doors, kept NO records of its proceedings, published NO public notices, and did NOT provide opportunities for general public participation and observance. However, Mr. Mohrig’s reason—actually his excuse—for the EFC’s lack of transparency is that “informal” committees are not bound by Georgia’s Open Meeting and Records Act or any other rules for that matter. Ethics laws? Legal liability? Forget about it. Slap the adjective “informal” on a committee and you can do whatever you want and keep no record of what you did.
The irrefutable rebuttal to Mr. Mohrig’s reasoning (or lack thereof) is there is no such thing as an “informal” committee. It is entirely fictional. A figment of Mohrig’s and the City’s imagination, like Big Foot, the Tooth Fairy, and the Loch Ness Monster. It’s a lie and an insult to the intelligence of Milton’s fine citizens. Surely, if there was such an entity as an informal committee, there would be some mention of “informal” committees somewhere in Milton’s municipal code. So I did a search of Milton’s municipal code using the term “informal committee.”Following is a screen shot of the results:
That’s right . . . there are exactly ZERO mentions of “informal committees” and accordingly no rules for such committees.Georgia’s Open Meetings Act requires that meetings of every “department, agency, board, bureau, office, commission, authority, or similar body of each such county, city, or other political subdivision of the state” be open to the public.PERIOD.No exceptions, Mr. Mohrig. Furthermore, Georgia’s Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Colangelo stated that the “informal” EFC should have followed guidelines of the Open Meetings Act (source: Milton Herald). Again, “informal” committees are a fiction merely intended by Mr. Mohrig to dupe citizens.
However, it gets worse. The city does, of course, have rules for convening and operating committees . . . explicit and strict rules that City Council and the EFC should have followed, but did not. The City engaged in illegality, but has not admitted it.
The rules for committee formation and operation are to be found primarily in two sections of Milton’s municipal code: 1) City Charter: Section 4.11 – Boards under Article IV and 2) Local Acts: Division 1 under Article V – Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Authorities contained within Chapter 2- Administration. Following are links to both sections of the Milton Municipal Code.
The “informal” EFC violated Milton’s (and some state) laws pertaining to establishing and operating committees. By my count, the City violated at least eight of its rules for city committees:
The date and time of each EFC meeting and the associated EFC’s agendas were NOT publicized as required by both city and state law. The EFC’s meetings were not even included on the city’s calendar.
The EFC’s meetings were NOT open to the public (as required by both city and state law).
Minutes of meetings were NOT kept and filed with the city clerk’s office.
City council did NOT establish the period of existence, duties, and powers of the EFC.
City council did NOT appoint members of the EFC by a majority vote.
City council did NOT establish a seven-member board with one member nominated by each member of council and the mayor.
City council allowed elected officials to serve on the EFC, which is a violation of the City Charter.
EFC members served on the EFC without 1) taking an oath administered by the mayor and 2) executing and filing that oath with the city clerk.
I am attaching files of the relevant sections of the Milton Municipal Code, highlighting the rules violated by the City. Considering all the malfeasance around Milton’s elections, it is likely that someone will sue Milton. The City’s multiple and serious irregularities in establishing and running the EFC would certainly figure prominently in such a lawsuit.
In conclusion, as with so many other issues surrounding the 2023 elections (e.g., Mohrig’s exaggerated and recently discredited election savings claims), Rick Mohrig’s lies about “informal” committees demonstrate he is a person of low character and little integrity. . . just another lying, dissembling politician who has no respect for the law or for the citizens he supposedly serves.
Advocating For Free, Fair, Honest, and Transparent Elections,
(Above screenshot is from upcoming August 21st City Council agenda. I assume in this post that Council will pass this resolution.)
Today’s blog post is about Milton terminating its contract with its elections consultant, Vernetta Nuriddin, who was forced upon city staff by Council Members Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore. Coincident with Nuriddin’s termination, the City is hiring another consultant, Lavinia White, to accomplish the exact same scope of work. Ominously, this simultaneous termination and hiring is occurring on the first day (August 21st) of candidate qualifying. That’s right . . . another 2 ½ months have been lost and the city is going to write election rules while the 2023 municipal elections campaign is occurring. It’s like changing the wheels of a racecar while its zooming by. It is surreal and the latest episode (of many) in Milton’s election dysfunction. And make no mistake about it . . . most of the blame falls squarely on Moore, Mohrig, and a small band of hyper-partisan extremists that have held sway (often in the back rooms of City Hall) over Milton’s elections policymaking for 2+ years. As I have reported at this blog, the state elections board has been requested (by Milton Families First) to investigate numerous elections irregularities in Milton. I suspect the state elections board will NOT be ok with Milton writing elections rules after candidate qualifying and during an ongoing campaign.
First, some context . . .
For the past month, the Milton Coalition Blog has been focused on Milton’s elections initiative. Of course, elections are fundamental to the proper functioning of our democracy. Obviously, municipal elections design and planning require especially high standards of honesty, rigor, non-partisanship, and transparency. Voters across the political spectrummust have full faith and confidence in Milton’s conduct of its municipal elections. Two sacrosanct election principles are election integrity and equal voter access. Unfortunately, Milton has failed miserably in upholding both of these principles, with the ill effects reverberating to the present day . . . as I will explain.
Since July 16th I have documented myriad instances of incompetence, dishonesty, partisanship, and non-transparency in Milton’s elections design and planning. For 2+ years, Moore, Mohrig and a lunatic fringe have been steering—and often interfering with–Milton’s non-partisan (emphasis intentional) municipal elections. Their interference represents an existential threat both to elections integrity and to voting rights and has put Milton in a precarious position. With candidate qualification commencing in just 3 days, the city is far from completing its election planning and preparations, including writing its elections rules. (I understand that this puts the city in a difficult legal position—i.e., vulnerable to court challenges. This makes sense . . . it is unfair for candidates not to understand election rules in advance of qualifying.) Election interference by Moore, Mohrig, and their partisan foot soldiers have put the city behind the proverbial eight ball, with much time and money wasted. Following are parts 1 and 2 of my Election Interference series of blog posts that document chapter-and-verse how Milton got to this sorry state of affairs.
Thankfully, the Milton Coalition blog posts catalyzed public protest that resulted (just 8 days after my initial post) in Council reversing its previous egregious decision to deny District 3 voters equal access to the ballot box . . . a vaulted victory for voting rights. However, myriad other problems with Milton’s elections initiative remain and require attention. One serious problem that is reverberating to the present day and is the subject of this blog post concerns election integrity . . . Moore and Mohrig’s interference in the hiring of an elections consultant.
Milton’s now nefarious Elections Feasibility Committee (EFC) concluded its work in December 2022 (although some members and their allies have continued to meddle and micromanage behind the scenes, as I have documented in earlier blog posts). In early 2023, it was widely believed that North Fulton’s cities would band together to run their municipal elections under a regional elections authority. Soberly assessing the complexity, costs, and risks involved in running municipal elections, the other North Fulton cities wisely stepped back from the brink leaving Milton alone to stagger forward into the election chasm. (Note that before she was hired, even Ms. Nuriddan opined that it was illogical for Milton to go it alone and run its 2023 elections!!!!)
As the blog has documented, the EFC ignored or underestimated many costs to run Milton’s elections (costs I estimate are now in total more than triple the EFC’s estimates and equivalent to Fulton County’s costs). One critical cost was the budget for an elections consultant . . . only $13,000. As with many costs, the committee provided no sourcing and/or justification for its cost estimate, which seems to have been pulled from thin air. Keep in mind, Milton has never run an election and internal expertise is almost completely lacking, so $13,000 seems a gross underestimate for obtaining needed assistance, especially considering Milton’s sister cities would no longer be sharing resources and costs. Accordingly, none of Milton’s limited options were affordable. NONE.
Elections Superintendent Steve Krokoff wisely devised a Plan B where polling managers (with much of the experience he needed) would be hired early and would complete Milton’s election design, planning, and preparations. Five of seven council members gave their assent to Plan B. However, Moore and Mohrig strenuously objected. Both pushed a candidate, Ms. Nuriddan, who lacked consulting and elections superintendent experience, and was reluctant to accept the work . . . while also expressing discomfort with a lack of integrity she sensed in Milton’s elections initiative (including her hiring). Moore and Mohrig began quoting prices; it seems they were actually negotiating with Ms. Nuriddan! It should be noted that Ms. Nuriddan had previously been rejected by staff for not meeting minimum qualifications. Yes, minimum qualifications . . . however, Moore and Mohrig were not to be deterred. Moore and Mohrig readily agreed to nearly doubling (by $12,000) the consulting budget (although both balked at adding a third polling location ostensibly because of the additional $4500 cost). Despite his strong objections and the support of most of the council for his Plan B, Krokoff caved to Moore and Mohrig and hired Nuriddan. The squeaky wheels got greased. This episode cost the city an extra $12,000 and more than 1½ months of critical planning time. However, Moore and Mohrig got their consultant . . . someone I believe they thought they and their partisan allies could control. Open Records Request show that almost immediately problems began to arise . . . some related to Ms. Nurridan’s lack of expertise in needed areas and some related to interference from council members and political partisans. (This is backed up by a lot of hearsay emanating from credible sources at city hall, but I don’t traffic in hearsay, so I will leave it at that.)
I don’t know the reasons for Ms. Nuriddan’s termination and the hiring of another consultant, Lavinia White. I will submit Open Records Requests to investigate further. In the meantime, I will leave it to readers to draw their own conclusions about what might have occurred. However, I will offer a few observations. First, the work scope for Ms. Nuriddan and for Ms. White are identical, so I would infer that none of Ms. Nuriddan’s work scope items were (fully) completed. I would further infer that the City now finds itself in a very difficult position . . . writing election rules while campaigns are in progress. Second, in its dismissal letter, the city does not specify whether termination is for convenience or for cause. Based on the tone of the letter, I would assume the City chose termination for convenience, which means the City would likely be on the hook for the full contract value: $25,000. If so, White’s contract for $12,500 would be additive and would mean that election costs have again risen . . . making it nearly certain that when ALL costs are considered, Milton will pay more to run its elections than it would have paid Fulton County. Third, it is ironic to note that in hiring Ms. White (and polling managers early), the City has reverted to a version of Krokoff’s original Plan B. Fourth, this latest fiasco has cost the City another 2½ months on top of 1½ months wasted by Moore and Mohrig’s micromanagement of Ms. Nuriddan’s hiring. In quashing Krokoff’s April 21st Plan B to use polling managers for elections planning and preparation, Moore and Mohrig have cost the City 4 months that it can’t spare. Now the City finds itself with back against the wall, in a potentially perilous legal situation, and lacking voter trust and confidence. Council Member Cookerly’s prediction that burdens and encumbrances would escalate is coming true. It is said that the past is prologue, so it is nearly certain that other serious elections problems will arise. Considering the overwhelming incompetence, dishonesty, and partisanship in Milton’s elections initiative, voter confidence and trust in Milton’s 2023 elections have been irretrievably lost. Voter trust and confidence is a litmus test for elections success . . . and by this standard, Milton’s election initiative has been a complete and utter failure. GAME OVER.
The blame game about Milton’s elections has already begun. And it is true that Elections Superintendent Krokoff, City Attorney Jarrard, and the entirety of council bear some responsibility. However, the lion’s share of responsibility for the brokenness of Milton’s elections initiative falls squarely on Council Members Mohrig and Moore and their lunatic fringe confederates. Mr. Mohrig and Mr. Moore . . . gentlemen, you break it, you own it. Time to man up.
Advocating for Honest, Transparent, Fair, Competent, and Non-partisan Elections,
Tim
Note: I have long prided myself on keeping the Milton Coalition Blog strictly non-partisan. In local politics and governance, I have always prioritized principles over party, politics, and partisanship. In my experience, party politics do not translate to local issues. The divisions over past contentious issues have decidedly not broken along party lines. Accordingly, it pains me to witness partisanship infecting Milton’s non-partisan elections. I urge citizens across the political spectrum to reject partisanship in our local politics.
I will continue to adhere to non-partisanship with my blog posts. However, because of the partisan sensitivities around elections, I feel compelled to explain my political leanings to demonstrate my independence and objectivity. I am an independent, Libertarian-leaning, Constitution-loving, patriotic, Ronald Reagan Conservative and proud of it. (I proudly served our great nation as a US Navy nuclear submarine officer for nearly 8 years.) However, right is right. Basic rights and fairness are at stake. The election issues I am exposing transcend party and politics. I refuse to stand by and let certain council members and political partisans destroy the fairness and integrity of Milton’s elections.
At City Council’s July 24th meeting, political activist Lisa Cauley and Councilman Rick Mohrig, both members of Milton’s Election Feasibility Committee (EFC), respectively estimated elections cost savings of (at least) $200,000 and $250,000 for Milton self-running its municipal elections. At a July 29th blog post, I explained how such cost savings are an impossibility.
Mohrig’s savings projections are nearly 120% higher than the EFC’s estimates from December 2022. In reality, Milton’s elections cost savings have been steadily and substantially shrinking as Milton’s costs for running municipal elections have been steadily and substantially rising . . . despite service levels being drastically reduced. The City’s current cost estimates for the 2023 elections are 57% higher than the EFC’s estimates . . . and this is without including any costs associated with city staff time expended on elections tasks, which I conservatively estimate at $100,000 (1000 hours at a fully loaded rate of $100 per hour).
If current cost trends continue and all costs (including city staff time) are included and accurately estimated, I project that in 2023, the City of Milton will break even at best–and likely will lose money–by running its 2023 municipal elections. Following is my logic. The City’s current cost estimates are over $113,000 (and rising), but do not include any costs for staff time. If you accept my estimate of $100,000 for staff time, then current election costs are approximately $213,000. Compare this to Fulton County’s best estimate of its costs to run Milton’s election: $212,040 . . . or Fulton County’s maximum (i.e., capped) cost to run Milton’s election: $235,600. And remember that to achieve its mythical cost savings, Milton cut service levels by 1) reducing polling locations from eight to three, 2) reducing the EFC’s recommended early voting hours from 206 hours to 149 hours, and 3) eliminating the option to early vote in Alpharetta or any other Fulton County early voting location outside Milton. (You could also argue that Milton has shifted some costs to citizens, who will have travel further and expend more time to vote.) So Milton could end up spending more money (than would have been charged by Fulton County) for much lower service levels (than Fulton County would have provided) . . . paying more for less . . .
. . . and that is why I requested through an Open Records Request that Cauley and Mohrig substantiate their cost savings claims. Cauley provided no substantiation. Following is the response from Cauley’s attorney:
Mohrig’s response was more interesting and frankly just garbage. Mohrig provided two largely irrelevant documents . . . neither of which substantiated his cost savings estimates. The first was a January 22nd article from the Milton Herald that provided various now-outdated cost estimates for Fulton County to run Milton’s elections. Mohrig used a yellow marker to highlight a cost of $9.38 per registered voter. However, in February, Fulton provided a revised and final estimate of $6.93 per registered voter and capped its maximum cost at $7.62 per registered voter, so Mohrig is using old information (that even if accepted, would not substantiate his savings estimates).
Mohrig’s other document was a hodge-podge of 7 pages that only provided cost figures for voting machines . . . the relevance of which is lost on me. (Both documents are provided are the end of this post. I encourage citizens to examine both documents to understand the obvious ridiculousness of Mohrig’s response.)
Mohrig’s vastly exaggerated cost savings fit into a long pattern of dishonest and unethical behavior by Mohrig (and Paul Moore). For two years, Mohrig and Moore have led the charge for Milton to conduct its own elections. As a member of the EFC, Mohrig was steeped in the business case for Milton self-running its elections. Mohrig should be able to solidly back up any cost savings claims he makes. However, once again, Mohrig has engaged in falsehood. His latest deception is just further evidence that the EFC’s work was shoddy and dishonest and the EFC’s recommendations were not worth the paper they were written upon.The long history of dishonesty in Milton’s elections initiative also casts serious doubt on whether Milton can actually run a free, fair, and honest election. Milton deserves much better from its city government.
Advocating for Truth From Our Elected Representatives,
Tim
Note: See source materials below and source excerpts within the post. I always provide source materials so readers can draw their own conclusions about the issues facing Milton.
On Wednesday, Milton Families First (MFF) came out swinging for citizens and for good governance with a letter to the Georgia Elections Board requesting an investigation into mismanagement of Milton’s elections, possible ethical misconduct, and potential violation of state elections laws. (I am attaching MFF’s letter below.) Following is the link to an AJC article on MFF’s elections effort:
MFF was formed only 10 days ago, so MFF’s request for an investigation is a big, bold (and I think brilliant) move from this non-partisan government watchdog group. What better way to demonstrate your seriousness of purpose and achieve strong and lasting positive community impact than to tackle elections, which are the foundation of democracy? And make no mistake about it . . . democracy in Milton is seriously threatened . . . ironic because the impetus for Milton’s election initiative were concerns about elections incompetence and integrity. Through its thoroughly dishonest, non-transparent, incompetent, partisan, and unfair elections design and planning process, the City of Milton has lost the trust and confidence of many voters.
As readers know, I began blogging about Milton’s elections fiasco on July 16th, publishing 8 posts about the election since then; this post is my ninth. As they always do, smart and engaged Miltonites heartily accepted my challenge and loudly protested to Milton’s city government. Just 8 days later, the overwhelming public outcry resulted in a July 24th city council vote where council grudgingly reversed its earlier 4-3 vote denying District 3 a polling place. In a 7-0 vote, council added a District 3 polling location at the Milton Public Safety Complex on Highway 9. It is a shame that citizens have to coerce council to do the clearly right thing. Council Members Rick Mohrig, Paul Moore, Jan Jacobus, and Andrea Verhoff all backpedaled on their earlier opposition. This was a huge victory for citizens and voter access . . . and a stinging defeat for the bobbing-and-weaving Moore and Mohrig. Citizens announced loudly that they, not dissembling politicians (and their partisan operatives), are in charge. However, as I have discussed at length (and MFF also discusses in its letter), the lack of voting access is one of myriad problems with Milton’s elections process . . . problems stretching back over two years that have been routinely brushed aside and ignored, despite loud protests from citizens and excellent critical reporting from the Milton Herald. For example, Milton’s Election Feasibility Committee recommended Milton “mirror” Fulton County’s 2021 early voting days/hours, recommending a total of 206 early voting hours. The City has not only designated early voting days/hours that diverge significantly from Fulton County, but it has reduced total early voting hours by nearly 28% to just 149 hours. Please read my earlier blog posts to understand the many other serious problems with Milton’s election initiative . . . voter access is just the tip of the iceberg.
So is there a feasible face-saving exit strategy for the Milton City Government? Because of the city’s endless vacillation and dizzying course corrections, the city’s options are now extremely limited . . . with qualifying set to begin in just 11 days. The city had a last chance to revert to Fulton County running its elections, which was suggested by Council Member Carol Cookerly and implicitly endorsed (I inferred) by Elections Superintendent Krokoff. The city blew this opportunity. Unfortunately, council’s pride, vanity, and weakness carried the day as usual. Council roundly disregarded Cookerly and Krokoff, and deep-sixed the FuCo option in favor of the city continuing to self-run its elections.
At this point, I see only one option that could save the city from embarrassment, possiblelitigation, and the potential for poorly executed elections. However, it is an option that would require Moore and Mohrig to demonstrate integrity, humility, and selflessness. It is an option that would require Moore and Mohrig to put the community’s interests above self-interests. The only way out of this scandal and crisis is for Moore and Mohrig not to run for re-election. This is the right and decent thing to do. It rectifies the City’s unethical and indefensible blunder in assigning Moore and Mohrig to design and plan their own elections! Moore and Mohrig’s withdrawal would likely mean that the city would not have any competitive races, so Milton would have no elections to run.It would allow the city to hit the reset button and embark upon a deliberate, rigorous, honest, transparent, and fair re-evaluation of its elections options. It would even have the benefit for Moore and Mohrig of perhaps restoring some measure of community respect (for them) and almost certainly restoring some measure of self-respect. However, if citizens are counting on Moore and Mohrig to do the right thing . . . don’t hold your breath. Their track record for altruism is poor. Perhaps, pressure (and even prayer) from the community, particularly family and friends, might be needed. And if Moore and Mohrig cannot be persuaded to withdraw, I am quite certain citizens will send them into retirement in early November.
Advocating For Election Integrity and Voter Access,
I am delighted to be the purveyor of some great news for the Milton community! Attached is the press release for the newly formed Milton Families First (MFF). Following are MFF’s Facebook and website links. (Note: I am not connected with MFF in any way.)
Citizens should be ecstatic about the advent of an advocacy group, Milton Families First, that has as one of its goals: holding local government accountable. It is just what the doctor ordered. You can see from its website and Facebook page that MFF is a well-funded, professional entity with expertise and (I understand) legal resources. MFF promises to be a (positive) game-changer in Milton’s politics and government.
MMF is long overdue. For too long, basic accountability has been lacking at City Hall. Quite simply, local government often does the wrong thing . . . because it can. Unethical conduct and gross incompetence are routinely ignored; there is no consequence for failure or bad behavior. Some city council members pursue personal agendas and are beholden to special interests. Staff bends too readily to pressure from council members. Strategic priorities are ignored to focus on minutiae. A lack of transparency makes it difficult for citizens to see into city government and to meaningfully engage.
Now, with MFF, an organized group with money, expertise, and legal firepower will be watching and engaging when needed. MFF intends to provide a platform for citizen awareness and engagement. MFF intends to focus on ensuring Milton has a government that is as good as its people (to paraphrase Jimmy Carter).
One of MFF’s founders is Tony Palazzo. Palazzo is the White Columns (WC) subdivision HOA president and a successful local business owner (with offices in Milton). I have written extensively about Palazzo’s terrible ordeal at City Hall, where he was treated disrespectfully, dishonestly, and unfairly. (Please read my earlier blog posts.) Rather than surrender to the City, Palazzo engaged in a David-vs-Goliath struggle for justice . . . and has prevailed so far. Recently, Paul Moore finally abandoned his legal appealsto overturn his conviction (see Bits & Pieces page at the blog) on 3 ethics charges—a unanimous decision by Milton’s three-attorney ethics panel. By his own admission, Mr. Moore spent $100,000 on attorneys but to no avail. However, Palazzo’s quest for justice is not over. Palazzo has firsthand experience with the misbehavior and dysfunction at City Hall. He has seen behind the curtain and is bound-and-determined to ensure no other citizen endures the rotten treatment he experienced. You have to admire his courage and determination. MFF represents another important step in the quest for justice and more importantly good governance in Milton. I am happy to have a powerful ally in my endeavors! Welcome to the fight . . .
My understanding is that MFF’s near-term focus will be on turning Council Members Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig out of office. However, I am told that MFF is also committed to the long-term success of Milton and will continue to engage in politics and government after the 2023 elections. MFF will be a force to be reckoned with. I wish MFF rousing success in achieving its noble goals. It seems MFF is off to a great start. I encourage citizens to check out MFF’s website and to support MFF in its endeavors. Citizen support and engagement is critical . . . I believe that we get the government we deserve.
Don’t forget about my Bits & Pieces (B&P) page at the blog. My latest B&P post is about 4 negative articles that have been published in the Milton Herald since July 24th. In all 4 articles, Council Members Mohrig and Moore play a central and villainous role. And unfortunately, these two council members have been constantly at the center of government dysfunction and misbehavior for the past 15+ months, diverting local government from strategic priorities. Every week, it seems there is another unflattering news story about bad governance in Milton that stars Moore and Mohrig. It is past time for the curtain to close on these two bad actors. Following is a link to Bits & Pieces, as well as the 4 recent Milton Herald articles:
Attached is an Open Records Request (ORR) that I sent yesterday to the city. The ORR requests partisan activist Lisa Cauley and Council Member Rick Mohrig provide documented substantiation of cost savings they are claiming for Milton self-running its elections. (I have submitted another ORR requesting the City’s original and current business cases for running its municipal elections.)
As Council Member Carol Cookerly stated at City Council’s last meeting, Milton’s elections problems are “escalating.” The City is in a tight bind. Every move the City makes only worsens matters. And that is why Ms. Cookerly convincingly and wisely urged City Council to reconsider FuCo running Milton’s 2023 municipal elections to deescalate the mounting “burdens” and (I would contend) to de-risk the 2023 municipal elections. City Manager and Elections Superintendent Krokoff echoed Cookerly’s concerns stating that he was confident he could “mechanically” pull off the election, but his main concern centered on citizens’ sinking trust and confidence in the elections reflected in the increasing public outcry about election integrity and voter rights.
On Monday night, Council Member Rick Mohrig and partisan activist Lisa Cauley only made matters worse with exaggerated claims of cost savings from Milton self-running it municipal elections. Remember that Cauley and Mohrig (along with Paul Moore) were members of the now infamous Elections Feasibility Committee (EFC) and alas both should hew to higher standards of honesty. Unfortunately, the EFC was steeped in sloppiness, dishonesty and secrecy going back to its murky creation and its initial meetings, which were held behind closed doors, without any notes kept of the proceedings. The EFC’s elections incompetence, duplicity, and lack of transparency persist to the current day . . . the result an elections process steered by partisans lacking in elections expertise.
On Monday night, in general public comment, Ms. Cauley projected savings of “at least $200,000.” Not to be outdone, Mr. Mohrig projected $250,000 in cost savings. See above excerpt from the EFC’s December 2022 recommendations report. Cauley and Mohrig’s savings are 75% to 119% higher than the EFC’s estimated cost savings. Cauley and Mohrig’s estimates are laughable.In fact, cost savings estimates are likely decreasing considering theCity’s elections costs have been rising substantially. Consider just 3 items. $10,000 was prudently added for contingency; a third polling location will cost $11,243; and Milton’s elections consultant is being paid $12,000 more than budgeted. These 3 underestimated items by themselves total $33,243, thereby pushing the city’s estimated 2023 elections cost from $72,254 to $105,497 . . . a 46% increase from the EFC’s December 2022 estimates. These 3 additional costs drive down estimated savings to $81,000 to $84,000 . . . or $40,500 to $42,000 per year when annualized . . . barely 0.1% of Milton’s annual budget . . . and the savings will likely continue to shrink as EFC’s shoddy business case makes a rendezvous with reality.
It is unclear what Cauley and Mohrig assumed would be FuCo’s cost to run Milton’s 2023 municipal election. However, in February, FuCo capped elections costs at $5.72M for Fulton County. My rough calculations (using 2 different methods) indicate the FuCo would charge Milton no more than $225,000 to $235,000. (Note: There is a true-up based on actual votes per locality, so the final costs are ultimately unknown and unknowable at this time. And there are a few other unknowns. However, FuCo costs can be ball-parked based on reasonable assumptions.) Comparing these estimated FuCo maximum costs with Milton’s costs means that Cauley and Mohrig’s estimated cost savings of $200,000 to $250,000 are an impossibility for 2023. Pure fantasy! And that is why I submitted the ORR . . . Cauley and Mohrig need to put up or shut up . . . admit that they have no support for their projections or else cough up substantiation of their claims (if they are keeping their own set of books on municipal elections).
Cauley and Mohrig are caught between the proverbial rock and a hard place. There are only 2 answers they can provide to my ORR, and both answers will prove their cost savings assertions to be false. The first answer is they provide NO substantiation of their savings claims, thereby conceding they pulled their cost savings estimates out of thin air. The second answer is they provide support for their figures that (I am sure) can be easily refuted (not unlike the calculations I provided above). Of course, it is possible that Cauley or Mohrig will engage in some transparent sort of verbal sleight-of-hand.
My ORR serves other purposes. I want to call attention to Cauley’s operating in an ill-defined, quasi-official role. Citizens operating in such roles are problematic as I explain in my letter. I believe the city makes itself vulnerable to legal challenges by employing citizens, especially partisan activists, in designing elections (or for that matter in any other important city functions) without any adequate definition of their relationship/arrangement with the City.
My other purpose in submitting an ORR is to highlight the aforementioned dishonesty and lack of process rigor as just more examples (as if more were needed) of a long and deep pattern of elections incompetence and duplicity stretching back to the EFC’s formation. There is so much misbehavior here—much of it from top Milton government officials—that an independent investigation is needed that is conducted either by 1) Milton (hiring an independent investigator) or 2) the Secretary of State. Milton’s citizens should demand accountability and transparency.
Advocating for Election Integrity and Voting Rights,
Tim
Note: I have long prided myself on keeping the Milton Coalition Blog strictly non-partisan. In local politics and governance, I have always prioritized principles over party, politics, and partisanship. I will continue to adhere to non-partisanship with my blog posts. However, because of the partisan sensitivities around elections, I feel compelled to explain my political leanings to demonstrate my independence and objectivity. I am an independent, Libertarian-leaning, Constitution-loving, patriotic, Ronald Reagan Conservative and proud of it. (I proudly served our great nation as a US Navy nuclear submarine officer for nearly 8 years.) However, right is right. Basic rights and fairness are at stake. The election issues I am exposing transcend party and politics. I refuse to stand by and let certain council members and political partisans destroy the fairness and integrity of Milton’s elections.
(Correction on July 28th to reflect correct EFC savings estimates. Original estimates cited were lower.)
Last night, Milton City Council discussed municipal elections in Milton. I am going to cover the good, the bad, and the ugly from city council’s meeting.
First, the Good. Last night, Milton City Council backtracked and added a District 3 polling location (in a 7-0 vote), reversing its decision (in a 4-3 vote) from May 1st.It was a much-deserved smackdown for Paul Moore, Rick Mohrig, and partisan activist Lisa Cauley. It was a rejection of the injection of partisanship into the design of Milton’s non-partisan (by design) municipal elections.
First, a special thank you to Milton’s citizens for once again rising to the occasion and showing politicians in Milton that they—the citizens—are in charge. Not Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig. And not partisan activist Lisa Cauley and her vanishingly small and shrinking band of hyper-partisan associates. For the past 18 months, Moore and his sidekick Mohrig have dominated government in Milton; they have kept good governance hostage to personal and partisan agendas. Paul Moore’s never-ending (14+ months and counting) ethics fiasco still haunts and embarrasses the City . . . the gift that keeps on taking. I remind readers that Moore was found guilty of 3 ethics charges by the unanimous decision of a 3-attorney ethics panel. He lost his appeal at Superior Court and was denied a hearing at Appellate Court. For nearly a year, Moore and Mohrig have also wasted copious amounts of staff and council time with petty White Columns HOA issues. But the elections fiasco has inflicted the most damage on the city. Citizens have had enough. They are fed up . . .
Last night, the Moore-Mohrig duo was overthrown by citizens. Moore and Mohrig have certainly been wounded by Moore’s ethics troubles and by their intrusion into HOA minutiae. However, it was with the elections initiative that Moore and Mohrig seriously overplayed their hand.Feeling citizens’ increasing ire and an increasing deficit of trust, a previously over-indulgent council finally caved to overwhelming public opinion. The switch from a District 3 to a District 2 polling location (followed by council’s rejection of adding a third District 3 polling place) was a bridge too far for most Miltonites across the political spectrum. Furthermore, citizens were disgusted by the ethical misbehaviorin Milton’s election initiative exposed by me at the blog using the City’s responses to 7 Open Records Requests (3 from Appen Media and 4 from me). Citizens rebelled through email, texts, and phone calls.
Last night, in rapid succession, Jan Jacobus, Mohrig, and Moore all folded their cards, making various and sundry excuses for their earlier votes against a District 3 polling place. They all cited a powerful public outcry. Duh? (However, Paul Moore made no mention of his earlier reasoning that District 3 voters did not deserve a polling location because of their historically low voter turnout.) Of course, that public outcry only happened because I began blogging about this issue . . . just 8 days ago. In that time,the Milton Coalition blog has experienced a combined2000+ blog views and email opens. Such a response warms my heart. However, this sort of citizen rebellion is typical of Miltonites. I have been involved in Milton politics since 2014. With regular frequency, I have witnessed Miltonites giving wayward politicians their comeuppance on various issues and turning misbehaving elected officials out of office.
Very few incumbent council members have survived the three-term limit. Only two, Joe Lockwood and Joe Longoria, survived 3 terms. Over the past 17 years, 6 incumbents have been turned out of office; another 3 incumbents, facing certain defeat, chose not to run. It is a cautionary tale that Moore and Mohrig have failed to learn. I believe Team M&M will suffer inglorious defeat . . . paradoxically in the elections they helped to design. However, they will do a lot of damage to Milton on their way down. I predict that Moore and Mohrig will inject hyper-partisanship into Milton’s non-partisan municipal races, including the use of outside partisan shock-troops. At this point, partisanship is the only card they can play. I suspect they will hold themselves up as the true standard-bearers of the Republican Party. However, I don’t expect that Moore and Mohrig, who are radioactive with the Republican political establishment, will garner many Republican endorsements.
Now the Bad . . . Last night, Council probably missed its last chance to avoid the election abyss and convince Fulton County to run Milton’s elections. Council Member Carol Cookerly bravely, passionately, and articulately argued for the Fulton County option . . . a position for which she will take some flak in the short run, but which will likely benefit her in the long run. Cookerly clearly went on record supporting the FuCo option. She cited her “fiduciary responsibility” in recommending this “prudent” course. She cited “encumbrances” that “created a burden” for Milton. I assume she meant the many errors (of incompetence and integrity) that leave Milton’s elections vulnerable to legal challenges. She rightly characterized elections as risky and often controversial . . . by their nature. She also rightly noted that Milton’s problems were experiencing escalation not minimization, citing a growing gap between public perception and reality. It is important to understand that Cookerly owns a PR (and marketing) firm; this sort of issue falls squarely in her wheelhouse. Cookerly cited a “drain” on city assets: time, reputation, etc. She spoke of the necessity for “caution” and a “measured” approach (given the city’s precarious situation) ending her comments by imploring council to do what is “long-term” in the “best interests” of the city. Unfortunately, Council summarily dismissed Ms. Cookerly’s arguments; there was ZERO discussion of the FuCo option. I predict that Council will dearly regret its decision to forgo FuCo-run elections.
Now for the Ugly . . . Rick Mohrig’s and Lisa Cauley’s comments about costs savings. Before we get to Mohrig’s wild and unfounded assertions about cost savings, I want to provide some context. Insiders in City government will all tell you that Milton’s election initiative started with Rick Mohrig. Over the years, I have had several discussions with Rick about state and national politics. My impression from those discussions is that Rick has fried his brain through constantly listening to political talk radio. He is a sponge for political conspiracy theories . . . no matter how far-fetched.
In the wake of fraud claims after the 2020 presidential elections, Mohrig set out on a mission to convince Milton to self-run municipal elections. He was a disciple in a broader movement in North Fulton advocating for all cities to self-run municipal elections. I always found this strange as municipal elections are non-partisan. Candidates do not have an R or D next to their names and my observation is that partisanship–to the extent it infects local elections–is relatively light and subtle. Accordingly, the connection between the alleged stolen presidential election and self-running municipal elections was always unclear and tenuous—at best. Perhaps I am missing something. And besides, Milton’s Strategic Plan (approved in March 2021) makes absolutely no mention of elections. NONE. Nevertheless, later in the year, an Elections Feasibility Committee (EFC) was formed composed of 2 staff members plus 2 political partisans and 2 council members. Mohrig appointed Lisa Cauley to the EFC. Cauley and Council Member Moore are BFFs, so I suspect that is how Paul Moore got looped in. And Mark Amick, a fake Trump elector who claims to have witnessed thousands of votes wrongly assigned to Biden in 2020 recount, was appointed but no one knows how or by whom.
I believe the City likely broke its own laws (and perhaps state laws) in establishing and operating such a committee, which initially met behind closed doors (i.e., no public notice or participation) at least half a dozen times and kept no records. As the city’s responses to ORRs show, the EFC seems to have focused on certain right-wing orthodoxies around elections, such as hand-counting paper ballots. Higher-ups in FuCo’s Republican Party seem to have had some involvement . . . Milton was clearly part of a larger partisan project.
The committee also seems to have been driven by long simmering grudges against Fulton County. However, Fulton County is implementing significant election reforms—some mandated by the state. Further, I understand some Fulton elected officials were not real keen on overly harsh criticism of the county and successfully lobbied to cap FuCo’s election costs (partly to provide cover for other North Fulton cities that stepped back from self-running their municipal elections). At the same time, hysterical claims about elections from both the far left and far right were wearing thin with average citizens, so the election integrity argument (the original impetus for the elections initiative) was no longer resonating. Accordingly, the EFC fell back on asserting cost savings to be the sole reason (excuse?) for the elections initiative.
The cost savings obsession has hamstrung the Election Superintendent and had unintended consequences, such as under-budgeting for a consultant. The EFC’s cost savings have always been specious. And as often happens, the business case is not surviving contact with reality. In any case, costs should be a secondary driver of elections; honesty, fairness, rigor, and transparency should be the primary drivers.Voters across the political spectrum must have unceasing trust and confidence in election integrity.
Rick Mohrig is not one to let the truth get in the way of a good story. Mohrig has been touting savings as high as $250,000. And Ms. Cauley claimed $200K in savings. Both figures exceed the EFC’s estimated costs for FuCo to run elections! (See above excerpt from EFC recommendations report.) No one has any idea where these savings estimates are coming from. In its December 2022 overly optimistic report recommending Milton conduct its own municipal elections, the EFC estimated 2023 cost savings at $114K – $117K and savings in later years were estimated at $130K to $133K. However, since that time, FuCo lowered its costs to conduct elections and Milton’s own cost estimates have been rising, so the estimated savings have been shrinking.
Insiders at city hall are now saying that steady-state savings are likely only around $50K per election. And remember that municipal elections occur every two years, so annual savings would be only $25K. For perspective, consider that the City’s annual budget is around $38M, so annual elections savings would be 0.066% of Milton’s annual budget . . . a rounding error hardly worth the effort expended especially considering opportunity costs and the risks. However, it gets worse. The City has not included any staff time in its cost estimates. I suspect inclusion of such time would likely wipe out most/all cost savings.
And remember, Milton has achieved these meagre/nonexistent savings by drastically reducing service levels: no Sunday voting; no early voting in Alpharetta or any place outside Milton; fewer election day polling locations. And in slashing these service levels, the City is merely shifting its costs to citizens, as voters have to drive further to vote, wasting time and money (e.g., gas, auto wear-and-tear). Conservatively assume 3000 voters and an average $10 per voter in lost time and increased travel costs. That’s $30K. My sense is that considering total costs (to the city and to citizens), self-running Milton’s elections might actually cost citizens more than FuCo. And consider one last and very important element of this elections fiasco: opportunity costs. Could the City have better invested resources in other real and more substantial cost savings opportunities rather than investing in a clearly partisan political project that produced littl/no/negative savings to citizens when ALL costs are considered?
Bits and Pieces. I want to remind citizens about my Bits and Pieces page at the website where I provide posts for citizens that want to dig even deeper into local politics. I will be posting more at this page, including my impressions of 3 citizens that spoke last night in favor of Milton self-running its municipal elections. Actually, these citizens came out to attack me and the blog . . . Jimmy Crack Corn and I don’t care . . . and bless their hearts. Following is a link to Bits and Pieces:
Advocating for Election Integrity and Voting Rights Protection,
Tim
Note1: Lisa Cauley was a member of the infamous Election “Feasibility” Committee. I intentionally refer to Ms. Cauley, President of Fulton Republican County Women, as a “partisan activist” in the blog. She does not conform to my definition of a true Republican and certainly not my definition of a true Conservative.
Note 2: I have long prided myself on keeping the Milton Coalition Blog strictly non-partisan. In local politics and governance, I have always prioritized principles over party, politics, and partisanship. I will continue to adhere to non-partisanship with my blog posts. However, because of the partisan sensitivities around elections, I feel compelled to explain my political leanings to demonstrate my independence and objectivity. I am an independent, Libertarian-leaning, Constitution-loving, patriotic, Ronald Reagan Conservative and proud of it. (I proudly served our great nation as a US Navy nuclear submarine officer for nearly 8 years.) However, right is right. Basic rights and fairness are at stake. The election issues I am exposing transcend party and politics. I refuse to stand by and let certain council members and political partisans destroy the fairness and integrity of Milton’s elections.
Milton Herald Story. Today the Milton Herald published an article about the controversy swirling around Milton’s rejection of a District 3 polling location. I first broke this important story last Thursday (July 20th) in a blog post. The Milton Herald’s article (by Amber Perry) is definitely worth reading and provides confirmation of my earlier blog post. Following is a link.
The article mentions that Stacey Abrams’ Fair Fight and other progressive groups have protested to the City. My hope is that the Milton Herald will continue to investigate and report on the shameful elections fiasco in Milton. Ms. Perry should contact the key players for comment, including the involved partisan activists. There is also much more to this story that demands further investigation, including back-room interference from two council members and from partisan activists.
To its great credit, Appen Media has done an excellent job reporting about Milton and other North Fulton cities’ elections initiatives. Following are links to many other (not all) Milton Herald stories about (or related to) Milton’s election initiative. The bolded hyperlinks are the stories I believe are more interesting, including how Milton’s sister cities wisely stepped back from the brink. This list has been updated and reflects articles published through October 20, 2023:
EFC Recommended District 3 Polling Location at Milton Public Safety Complex (MPSC)!!!!!!! This past weekend I watched most of city council’s deliberations about running its own municipal elections. This includes the Election Feasibility Committee’s (EFC) presentation of recommendations to city council. And surprise of surprises! The EFC actually recommended polling locations in District 1 and . . . drumroll . . . District 3 at the MPSC (not District 2).
Mark Amick presented the EFC’s operational recommendations and proposed the MPSC as a voting location based on population density and Milton’s traffic patterns. This is important because partisan activists have been loudly complaining that city council is not following the EFC’s recommendations chapter-and-verse. However, we’ve not heard a peep from these activists about city council not following the EFC’s voting location recommendation. Hmm? And unfortunately, no one in city government caught this error; no one bothered to actually reference the EFC’s recommendations. Chalk it up to all-too-typical incompetence at City Hall.
The switch-up from a District 3 polling location to a District 2 polling location got accomplished in later council meetings. It was first suggested by Jan Jacobus, with Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig piling on. Of course, Mr. Moore was more than willing to make it easier for District 2 voters to vote, as he is from District 2 and has a (small and shrinking) base of support there; it benefits Mr. Moore to make it as convenient as possible for these District 2 supporters to vote. However, this inconvenient fact (of the switch in polling locations) makes the city even more vulnerable to legal challenges. It was originally and wrongly reported that the city failed to add a third polling location in District 3 when in fact the City replaced a District 3 polling location with a District 2 voting location (and later refused to add back the District 3 polling location). Worse, Mr. Moore cited the higher proportion of District 2 voters (than District 3 voters) participating in elections as justification for switching polling locations . . . essentially opining that District 3 voters should be punished for historically low turnout. I suspect Mr. Moore’s rationalization will provide much fodder for legal challenges.
Ms. Nuriddan’s Deletion of Text Communications.After a week of stalling, Milton’s City Attorney finally coughed up the following email from Milton’s election consultant, Vernetta Nuriddan . . . and it is a shocker. I had asked for Ms. Nuriddan’s text messages with city staff and council members Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig. I was especially interested in texts with the two council members. Well, Ms. Nuriddan responded that she “routinely” deletes all “text messages regarding elections policy, governance, or oversight.” My understanding is that Ms. Nuriddan’s contract with the city requires she retain all project communications and that such communications are property of the City. Accordingly, it would seem Ms. Nuriddan is in (material) breach of her contract. I will leave it to readers to decide whether Ms. Nuriddan’s alleged deletion of texts is truthful or not. To date, Ms. Nuriddan has shown refreshing integrity; however, deletion of her text messages certainly now calls her integrity into question.
So the plot around Milton’s elections thickens. If the plot thickens any more, you won’t be able to cut it with a chain saw.
Advocating For Elections Integrity,
Tim
Note: I have long prided myself on keeping the Milton Coalition Blog strictly non-partisan. In local politics and governance, I have always prioritized principles over party, politics, and partisanship. I will continue to adhere to non-partisanship with my blog posts. However, because of the partisan sensitivities around elections, I feel compelled to explain my political leanings to demonstrate my independence and objectivity. I am an independent, Libertarian-leaning, Constitution-loving, patriotic, Ronald Reagan Conservative and proud of it. (I proudly served our great nation as a US Navy nuclear submarine officer for nearly 8 years.) However, right is right. Basic rights and fairness are at stake. The election issues I am exposing transcend party and politics. I refuse to stand by and let certain council members and political partisans destroy the fairness and integrity of Milton’s elections.
Milton Coalition 