The above screenshot is from the Election Consultant’s July Report. In her monthly report, Milton’s elections consultant, Vernetta Nuriddan, states “I believe that the council erred when two incumbents on the November ballot were empowered to close Election Day polls in areas with high concentrations of people of color.” The two incumbents in question are . . . I’ll give you one guess . . . yes, Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore. (I am attaching the full consultant’s report. See page 4 to read above recommendation.)
Milton’s original election design (December 2022) called for only 2 polling locations in only Districts 1 and 3. However, later in a sneaky electoral sleight-of-hand, council members Jacobus, Mohrig, and Moore advocated for replacing the District 3 polling location with a District 2 polling location, which council then approved. Conveniently, there was no reference the original election design recommendations; however, Mr. Moore did insert his foot in his mouth and cited low voter turnout as a reason to deny District 3 a polling location. Later, council refused to add back the District 3 polling location. District 3 has Milton’s highest concentration of Democratic voters and voters who are people of color. (It is also the most logical location for a polling location due to traffic patterns in Milton.) In April 2023, Milton Elections Superintendent Steve Krokoff recommended adding a third polling location in District 3 (cost: only around $4,500 per year for municipal elections after 2023). Seeing the injustice in only 2 polling locations, Mayor Peyton Jamison made an impassioned plea for a District 3 polling location. However, Jamison was voted down 4-3. The four council members voting against a District 3 polling location (make a note of this when you vote) were Paul Moore, Rick Mohrig, Andrea Verhoff, and Jan Jacobus.
Over many months, Ms. Nuriddan has been consistent in her assertion (even before she was hired) that the City of Milton must be much more careful about council interference in elections.Once the City is within the elections cycle (after February 1st) and has named an Elections Superintendent, Ms. Nuriddan asserts that city council must butt out. Nuriddan was even uncomfortable with Mohrig’s involvement in her hiring. In emails and texts over many months, Ms. Nuriddan warned of elections interference from council members and from partisan activists.Ms. Nuriddan was troubled by Milton’s general sloppiness in its elections planning and implementation.
Ms. Nuriddan cites state law (SB202) in supporting her position. According to Ms. Nuriddan, SB202 defines the role of Election Superintendent, “which includes selecting and preparing polling locations.” Ms. Nuriddan implies that Krokoff should be making all elections decisions and Council should no longer have any say-so. It is common sense (except in Milton) that elected officials should be excluded from tampering with upcoming elections. Individual incumbent council members certainly should not be interfering behind the scenes in any way with election planning and execution. However, emails and texts show that Moore, Mohrig and political partisans inserted themselves into Milton’s election planning and implementation. There is rich irony in Moore and Mohrig’s strong-arming Krokoff into hiring Nuriddan, who in turn has criticized their meddling. There is an instance of Mohrig actually assigning an election task to Republican activist Lisa Cauley. (And communications show that Krokoff was also tasking Cauley with election action items.)
In her report, Ms. Nuriddan recommends that if the city is committed to only 2 election day polling locations, then the city should consider shifting one of the polling locations to District 3. Because Moore and Mohrig were “empowered to close election day polls in areas with high concentrations of people of color,” Nuriddan cites state law to warn that “an election contest could be made by a losing candidate on the grounds of misconduct, fraud, or irregularity by any primary or election official or officials sufficient to change or place in doubt the result. O.C.G.A. 21-2-522.” (Ms. Nuriddan underlined the above passage for emphasis.)
Citizens, this is as bad as it gets! Ms. Nuriddan is the expert that Moore and Mohrig pressured Krokoff to hire! I assume she knows what she is talking about. In her report, Nuriddan clearly sounds the alarm that Milton, through council’s actions, has made itself vulnerable to legal challenges to its elections . . . challenges that will embarrass the City andcost taxpayers in legal bills. Ms. Nuriddan asserts that Milton’s election design discriminates based on race and that such discrimination is a legitimate basis for legal challenges. She also asserts that Milton erred in allowing incumbents Moore and Mohrig to “close election day polls in areas with high concentrations of people of color” . . . in advance of 2023 elections in which Moore and Mohrig would be running for re-election. You really can’t make this stuff up!
Citizens, none of this dysfunction at City Hall should surprise you. It is exactly what you would expect from allowing sitting council members and political partisans with little elections experience/expertise to operate in secret to design and plan elections. From the get-go, Milton’s elections initiative was poorly and dishonestly planned and executed, which is ironic considering the initial impetus for Milton’s elections initiative was concern about election integrity in the wake of the 2020 presidential elections.
Ms. Nurridan’s criticism does not stop at election disenfranchisement, illegal council interference, and possible legal challenges to election integrity. Ms. Nuriddan also criticizes the city for taking risky shortcuts in its elections planning; limiting her ability to be effective/efficient; and recklessly skimping on legal resources/reviews. I will address these issues in another blog post.
In closing, my sincere hope is that, in the 2023 elections, Milton’s voters, especially voters in District 3, will soundly reject Moore and Mohrig’s elections meddling and exile them forever to political Siberia. My hope is also that Miltonites will reach out to the press. This is an important story that needs to be broadcast much more broadly.
Advocating For Free, Fair, and Honest Elections,
Tim
Note 1: I received Ms. Nurridan’s report through an Open Records Request. Ms. Nuriddan was supposed to present her report at the July 17th Milton City Council Working Session. However, at the last minute, the working session was mysteriously cancelled due to lack of a quorum. My understanding is that Ms. Nurridan was supposed to present at a rescheduled working session on Wednesday (July 19th), but that session never was scheduled. Rather, there was a Special Called Council Meeting on July 19th where council went into Excecutive Session. Folks, something funny is going on here. The City needs to come clean about what seems like increasing confusion and dissension about city elections.The secrecy needs to stop.
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 my country 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.
North Korea is once again in the news with the defection of a US soldier. This news story reminded me of a favorite photo: a satellite image of the Korean peninsula at night, with the South bathed in bright light and the North shrouded in darkness. The photo provides a pictorial metaphor for the stark contrast between free and democratic nations and repressive and dictatorial nations. And it reminds us that free, fair, and honest elections are foundational to our democracy. Voting rights are sacrosanct. Election design is not about minimizing costs or about wild conspiracy theories or about dishonestly achieving partisan political advantage. Elections are about integrity and equal access to the ballot . . . or should be.
Many citizens on the left and right have warned about existential threats to democracy being perpetrated by their political opponents on the other side of the political spectrum. Once, I thought such warnings to be vast exaggerations. Not any more. Over many months, I have researched and analyzed Milton’s two-year initiative to design and run its own elections. From its murky beginning to the present day, Milton’s election initiative has been characterized by dishonesty, secretiveness, incompetence, and partisanship. Whoever thought it was a good idea to allow sitting council members (Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig) and their partisan allies (e.g., Lisa Cauley, President of Fulton County Republican Women) to design and then interfere in planning/implementation of Milton’s elections? Even Milton’s election consultant, Vernetta Nuriddan, repeatedly warned the City about this issue.
I believe Milton’s election initiative is so fatally flawed that it is impossible to have any trust and confidence in Milton’s running its own elections in 2023. The damage is not repairable. I believe the only option for Milton is to convince Fulton County to run the 2023 municipal elections. This will require the city to eat a bellyful of crow and it will likely require intervention from county and state Republican leaders, like FuCo Commissioner Bob Ellis and State Representative Jan Jones. However, at this point, FuCo-run elections are the most prudent and least risky option for the City of Milton.
So what can the average citizen do? Following is some practical advice.
First,direct Miltonites to my blog.
Second,write to the mayor, city council, the city manager, and city attorney and express your dissatisfaction with Milton’s election initiative and urge them to engage Fulton County to run Milton’s 2023 elections. Following are their email addresses:
Third,come to city council and express your opinion. You will need to complete a speaker card, which is easy to do, and submit it to the City Clerk. City council meetings are held at city hall in Crabapple. The address is 2006 Heritage Walk, Milton, GA 30004. For directions, click this link: Directions to City Hall. The city maintains a calendar with all the key meeting dates and times: City Calendar. If you click on a meeting, additional links are provided to the meeting agenda, packet, streaming video, and other useful meeting information.
Fourth, encourage your friends and neighbors to engage.
Fifth, vote in this fall’s elections for candidates that will uphold ethics and election integrity in Milton.
Advocating For Free, Fair, and Honest 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. This is partly because I believe partisanship does not translate well to the local level. And in any case, elections in Milton are supposed to be non-partisan. 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 my country 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.
Miltonites deserve a government as great as the people that live here. Right now, as you will read, local government is failing you. Basic election integrity hangs in the balance. The only way citizens can right the wrongs discussed herein is to engage. The first step in engagement is to forward this email or the MC blog link.
Yesterday, in Part 1 of this post, I discussed the work of Milton’s Election Feasibility Committee (EFC). The EFC was officially disbanded in late 2022. However, as you will see, 3 of the 4 players continued to exert influence over Milton’s election process—mostly in the background. The 3 players in this second chapter of this story are Council Members Rick Mohrig, Council Member Paul Moore, Republican activist Lisa Cauley (President of Fulton County Republican Women). A fourth player, Karen Dubin (Recording Secretary of Fulton County Republican Women) emerges from the shadows to (try to) influence the hiring and work of the election consultant. A key task of this Gang of Four seems to have been to influence the hiring of an election consultant that they (thought they) could secretly control. They did succeed in hiring their favored consultant; however, the consultant refused to follow their partisan script. Today’s post (Part 2 of Election Interference) will discuss the hiring and subsequent engagement of that consultant, Vernetta Nuriddin.
As you read this ask post, ask yourself:
Is the level involvement by Council Members Mohrig and Moore in the hiring of an election consultant appropriate? Is it legal/ethical? At what point does this sort of interference become election tampering? Who was feeding partisan activist Karen Dubin information about the contract negotiations with the consultant? Did Rick Mohrig cross a line and coach the consultant in her contract negotiations with the City? Was Mohrig essentially negotiating against the City? And the big question: Should Rick Mohrig play any role (beyond referring a candidate) in hiring a consultant for an election in which he might be running? Even the consultant seems to have a problem with Mohrig’s involvement in her hiring, warning City Manager Krokoff (during contract negotiations): “I told him (Rick Mohrig) that incumbents cannot participate in the administration of their own elections. No way around that fact. I promised I would call so I did.”
Has the City erred in allowing council to dictate specifics of the election? Ms. Nuriddan seems to think so. She seems to believe once the City appointed an Election Supervisor and passed a certain date (February 1, 2023) that council interference is prohibited/restricted. She seems to imply that Krokoff should no longer be bringing decisions to council for their approval and that such meddling by council is perhaps illegal.
Why are political activists (without any official role) trying to influence the consultant outside of the public process? Why are these activists demanding that their input be kept secret from staff and the public? Are these activists actually being assigned tasks by the City? Are there established agreements to provide such services? Or is this another example of an “informal” (i.e., not guided by any regulation) arrangement like the EFC itself (in its early days)?
Do you get a sense that both Ms. Nuriddan and the City were forced into a contract by Mr. Mohrig and Moore? Why? Did the Gang of Four believe they could continue to exercise control from the shadows? Clearly, this issue comes to the fore when Krokoff directs Nurridan to cease all communications with council and the community. Ms. Nurridan had long been warning about running a loose and leaky process, even before she was hired. She also expressed concern about undue influence of council and individual council members in election design.
Given that the City is just now forming committees to write election rules, is it reasonable to believe the City can be ready to administer fall elections? Will rule-writing extend beyond qualifying in late August? Is it fair to not have a full set of complete rules before qualifying?
Given all that has transpired since the murky inception of the EFC, could any reasonable citizen—regardless of their party/partisan affiliations—have any trust and confidence in the integrity of Milton’s elections? Should Milton go on bended knee to Fulton County and request Fulton County run Milton’s municipal elections is 2023? Is it too late to step back from the brink (as Milton’s sister cities wisely opted to do)?
As you can see, there is a lot of mischief, dysfunction, and dishonesty to cover in this blog post. So let’s get on with the story. Fast-forward to the January 2023.
At this time, Vernetta Nuriddin comes to the attention of Council Members Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore (Team M&M). (It should be noted that many of Mohrig’s emails came from his personal email address, even though he was conducting city business. This has been a long-running problem with Mohrig and demonstrates his propensity for non-transparency. He was called out for the same issue in 2015.)
January 6-9, 2023. Ms. Nuriddin was introduced to Moore and Mohrig by Karen Dubin, a Republican activist who plays a prominent role later in this story.
Let me stop here to provide some impressions of Ms. Nuriddan. Ms. Nuriddan is a kind of a folk hero in Republican circles. This is because she is a Democrat who crossed party lines and provided the deciding vote that removed Richard Barron, Fulton County’s election chief. And for this, I applaud Ms. Nuriddan for her intelligence and courage. Furthermore, it is important to note that Ms. Nuriddan seemed at times reluctant to take on the Milton election consulting work. This may be because Ms. Nuriddan had not previously consulted and she did not have actual experience running an election and she has a day job as an Education Specialist in Atlanta’s charter schools. However, my sense is that Ms. Nuriddan’s reticence had at least partly to do with poor practices being applied by the City in its election work . . . undue influence, lack of rigor, secretiveness, etc.I must admit that while I found (like staff) Ms. Nuriddan’s qualifications to be thin, I admire Nuriddan’s consistent integrity and her willingness to call out and warn against less-than-ethical actions she was witnessing in Milton. You further get a sense that Rick Mohrig used a carrot-and-stick approach with Ms. Nurridan. The “stick” was Mohrig heavily pressuring both City Manager Krokoff and Nuriddan into a kind of political forced marriage. The carrot was Ms. Nuriddan’s compensation increased from $17K to $25K. (If Mr. Mohrig was helping Ms. Nuriddan negotiate with the City on price or scope, that would seem a serious ethics violation.)
January 15 – 25, 2023. In the wake of Dubin’s introduction, Mr. Mohrig and Ms. Nuriddin communicate and eventually meet. Ms. Nuriddin provides Mohrig with a resume; excerpts are provided below.
February 9, 2023 – It is important to understand that during the first 3 months of 2023, Roswell, Alpharetta, and Sandy Springs were all considering running their own municipal elections. These cities and Milton were considering pooling efforts and resources, including naming a regional election superintendent. (Johns Creek determined running their municipal election would cost more than under FuCo . . . the exact opposite conclusion from Milton.) Officials in these other cities stated that given the complexity of the task and the risk involved, they did not feel they had the time and resources to ready themselves for the 2023 election. To nudge them in the right direction, Fulton adjusted costs downward for FuCo to run municipal elections. Also, FuCo is implementing reforms (some state-mandated) that should reduce their on-going costs while improving performance. Milton’s sister cities all stepped back from brink while Milton recklessly leaped into the election chasm. Privately, a few officials in Milton’s sister cities told me that the benefits to be gained were not worth the investment, ongoing costs, and the risks. They also believe that the initial furor around election integrity (in the wake of the 2020 presidential election) has died down to the point that the political pressures are minimal and the other North Fulton cities will likely stick with FuCo. They believe local running of municipal elections is no longer a worthwhile cause. They believe Milton was reckless to proceed alone. I agree. Unfortunately, my sense is that the Gang of Four still believes the Milton election project is their ticket to fame and fortune within the Republican party. I believe it is more likely they will become political pariahs in the Republican Party once the revelations in this blog gain a wider audience.
February 13-14, 2023: Nuriddan finally made contact with Assistant City Manager Inglis and City Clerk Lowit. In communications with Inglis, Nuriddan mentions Milton as the model for North Fulton in 2025. Inglis and Lowit both interview Nuriddan and decide she is not suitable for the consulting project.
February 28, 2023. In late February, the City determines the scope of election consulting work. The cost will nearly double from a budgeted $13,000 to $25,000. (Both numbers are ridiculously low resulting in elimination of the most capable firms and consultants.)
March 8, 2023: Mohrig intervenes to countermand the decision by Inglis and Lowit. Mohrig makes a personal request that City Manager Krokoff interview Nuriddan. This is the beginning of a campaign by Mohrig (and Moore) to pressure both Krokoff and Nuriddan to consumate a consulting contract. At this point, with its sister cities bailing out, there is no time to waste. Milton is flying solo and has a short runway. However, a lot of time is wasted (nearly 3 months before a consultant is hired) partly because of Mohrig and Moore’s micro-mangement of the consultant hiring.
March 13, 2023: Nuriddin and Mohrig exchange a shocking set of texts. There is a lot here that is worth considering. First, Nuriddan opines that she believes Krokoff is planning “on the county conducting Milton’s elections” and states “It’s the only logical decision.” Nuriddin is asserting this because Krokoff is the Superintendent and as such, she believes it is his (and only his) decision to make. Second and more importantly, it is revealing that the consultant (Ms Nuriddan) that Mohrig wants to hire and succeeds in getting hired believes Milton should NOT run its elections. Mohrig argues that Krokoff cannot ignore council’s direction. However, Nurridan does not back down and asserts that “council cannot direct anything regarding its own election. It may vote to approve the city mgr’s recommendation for election supt. but that’s it.”This is a position that Nuriddan consistently states and defends throughout her communications in this blog. Essentially, Nuriddan is warning Mohrig that he and council need to be careful about meddling in elections and dictating to the Elections Superintendent, which is Krokoff. I assume Nuriddan knows what she is talking about; otherwise the City should not have hired her. This issue of the supremacy of the Elections Superintendent is a critical one. Mohrig finally accedes her point, but states he still wants her to help the city with implementation. He just doesn’t get it.
March 28, 2023. The City provides a short summary of the consultant qualifications it is seeking. A key selection criterion is significant experience with conducting municipal elections. Nuriddan does not seem to have this experience.
March 29, 2023. It is at this point that Lisa Cauley makes an appearance. In an extended text, Cauley complains to Council Member Andrea Verhoff. Cauley is right, except the problem is that hiring the consultant is complicated. The City has set a budget amount that is far too low to interest most qualified consultants. And in fact, 3 consultants/consulting firms turned down the city. And unfortunately, Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore are gumming up the works with their micro-management of the consultant hiring.
April 3, 2023. It is at this point that Mohrig turns up the heat on Krokoff and gets more aggressive in pushing Ms. Nuriddan.
April 13, 2023. However, the City Manager is simultaneously dealing with more important critical path issues.Krokoff wants to make some sensible changes (e.g., using scanners; adding a 3rd polling location) but gets denied by council.The stance of Milton’s tin-foil-hat hyper-partisans (that regularly come to council and rant) is that the recommendations of the EFC must be followed verbatim. (However, as later blog posts demonstrate, these partisans are hypocritical . . . . they are fine with changes that reduce voting access for certain voters.) They do not understand the wisdom of allowing the Elections Superintendent to assess risk-return and make reasonable adjustments to the EFC design. Krokoff subtly advises council that risks (for example, voter disenfranchisement?) exist that he is reluctant to discuss in a public forum that require reasonable adjustments. Council rejects his recommendations. It is back to the drawing board; more time is lost. It is at this time that Krokoff also warns council that significant variances exist relative to the original business case; the predicted savings are shrinking . . . and it is likely they will continue to shrink . . . no business case survives contact with reality. (Note: Later blog posts document steady and substantial reduction in alleged cost savings.)
April 14, 2023. Mohrig now appeals to Nuriddan, encouraging her to apply. Nuriddan throws out a price of $17K. It is concerning that matters have proceeded to a point where price is being negotiated and City staff have not been looped in. More interesting is that Nuriddan again warns Mohrig about his actions now that the election cycle has started (February 1). Mohrig never understands (Ms. Nuriddan’s position) that, as an elected official (especially one up for re-election in the Fall), he should not really be involved at all in the election design and planning, including hiring of consultants. At this point, Nuriddan believes the Elections Superintendent (and his staff) should be the sole decision-maker; council must butt out. Mohrig’s (and Moore’s) cluelessness in these matters is stunning.
April 14, 2023: Mohrig pesters Krokoff again. Mohrig seems bound and determined for Milton to hire Ms. Nuriddan. However, Krokoff has other thoughts. Krokoff’s two primary election staff have rejected Ms. Nuriddan and he has also reviewed her qualifications and found them wanting. He needs a better solution.
April 21, 2023: Krokoff offers a reasonable alternative solution (early hiring of poll managers and using them to write the rules), but he is immediately shot down by Moore and Mohrig. It is important to note that 5 other council members either supported the alternative or deferred to Krokoff to do as he thought best. However, Mohrig and Moore both object strenuously and ultimately get their way.
Following is Moore’s pushback on using the poll managers as consultants. And note that Moore mentions Ms. Nuriddan’s “price tag is around $30K.” This is considerably more than the $17K price floated by Nuriddan just one week earlier in texts with Mohrig. How does Moore know this? Why are council members broaching such matters with a potential consultant? Is this appropriate? Ethical? Is this sort of interference undermining the city’s negotiating position? Is it the case that council members are actually working with/for the consultant and negotiating against the city?
Krokoff pushes back hard stating that Ms. Nuriddan did not meet the minimum qualifications for the position.
Not to be deterred, Moore rebuts Krokoff. Moore states emphatically “If we have NO other reasonable choices, Vernetta is a ‘reasonable’ choice . . . at the right price.” Game, Set, Match for Moore. Nuriddan is forced on Krokoff. It is incredible to me that Moore and Mohrig feel they should manage Krokoff this closely. I have worked with dozens of boards and never witnessed a board forcing a consultant on their organization’s leader. Never.
April 24, 2023. Mohrig—always a day late and a dollar short—weighs in 3 days late and also pushes hard for Nuriddan.
April 23-24, 2023: During this time, Mohrig rants in text messages to Council Member Jacobus and even suggests a council member should participate in interviewing Nuriddan.
April 27, 2023: Finally, Krokoff and Nuriddan made contact. Clearly, Nuriddan is concerned about Mohrig’s intervention in her potential hiring stating: “I told him (Mohrig) that incumbents cannot participate in the administration of their own elections. No way around that. I promised I would call so I did.” Nuriddan is nothing if not consistent in her concerns about election tampering.
May 2, 2023. Krokoff finally relents and Nurridin is engaged in contract negotiations. Note that the price has increased from $17K to $20K after originally being budgeted at $13,000.
May 9, 2023: Lisa Cauley again pops us in texts from Mohrig to Krokoff. It seems Mohrig has tasked Cauley to work with State Assembly Representative Jan Jones, but Jones smartly waves off Cauley and demands an elected official request her assistance. This is first email indicating that Cauley is being assigned official tasks by the City government, but in what (if any) official capacity is unclear. This use of such off-the-books supernumeries, particularly political partisans, (especially for elections design/planning) should be troubling to citizens.
May 12, 2023. Karen Dubin, who introduced Mohrig to Nuriddan, now re-enters the picture when contract negotiations are underway with Nuriddan, who complains about Ms. Dubin’s “inappropriate” late-night text message “demanding that I sign the 26 pg contract.” Nuriddan is rightfully annoyed and rightfully upset that someone (Mohrig?) is sharing information with Dubin . . . a violation of confidentiality and likely of Milton’s purchasing rules and possibly undermining Milton’s negotiating position. Nuriddin again expresses concern about sloppy and unethical processes at Milton stating “I warned against talking about elections outside public forums.” She correctly wants to maintain discipline around citizen participation; integrity demands participation occur within the boundaries of the public process. Clearly Nuriddan is wary of the potential influence of partisans (and council members) outside of the established process. Following is Nurridan’s dialogue with Krokoff, with Dubin’s text (the black text box) attached:
May 17, 2023: Below is an email from Krokoff to council notifying council of a price increase from $20K to $25K(up from the original $17K and budgeted $13K).There must be a back story here. Did meddling by Dubin and Mohrig undermine the city’s negotiating position? Or was Nuriddan getting cold feet and she was advised to ask for more money (by Dubin or Mohrig or someone else?) Or did Ms. Nuriddan realize that the clock was ticking and Milton had no other inexpensive option, so she leveraged her improved negotiating position? Or did she realize that the project’s return to her did not match the risk she was perceiving (e.g., interference from partisans and council members)? This situation certainly warrants some investigation. It sure seems like negotiations around this contract were sloppy and included information being passed to Ms. Dubin.
Moore and Mohrig readily approved of the price increase. This is ironic considering they voted down adding a 3rd polling location because of costs (<$5000 per year) and have been similarly penurious when it comes to other elements critical to election service levels. Following is Moore’s response:
May 18, 2023. Mohrig also approved the price increase, which was nearly 100% over the the City’s budgeted amount:
June 6, 2023: Finally, Ms. Nuriddan was engaged. Unfortunately, many months were wasted at least partly because of Moore and Mohrig’s micro-management of hiring.
June 8, 2023: Almost immediately, issues seem to have emerged with Nuriddin’s communications with council and the community. Nurridin was directed by Krokoff not to discuss any “business related to your contract” with council members or citizens. Perhaps based on Nurridin’s many cautions about strict process discipline (over many months), Krokoff finally “got religion” around election integrity.
June 21, 2023: More direction was provided to Nuriddan from Krokoff about communications with the Secretary of State’s (SOS) office. It would seem Krokoff is concerned (maybe nervous?) about SOS scrutiny, although it would seem SOS involvement might be prudent to keeping Milton’s elections out of the ditch. Unfortunately, as a long-time watcher of Krokoff, I believe he has serious blind spots concerning government transparency . . . he’s mostly against it, despite protestations to the contrary.
June 21, 2023: In the below email, Nuriddan admits to some major gaps in her election knowledge about paper ballots. More importantly, Nuriddan reveals that her mission in Milton stems from direction she seems to have received from some Fulton County Republican operatives.The Milton elections project is part of a larger partisan initiative to locally run all municipal elections in North Fulton. (Nuriddan alludes to the same in an earlier text message.) This is troubling. Milton should be running its elections because it is the right thing to do, not as part of some broader partisan strategy. I have always felt Milton’s elections project was viewed by its strongest advocates as their ticket to fame and fortune in the Republican party and had little to do with high ideas of improving and strengthening democratic institutions in Milton.
June 27, 2023: Lisa Cauley once again pops up, with Ms Nuriddan seeking to appease Ms. Cauley by allowing her to attend some sort of elections meeting. The perceived need to offer mollifying gestures to Ms. Cauley is troubling.
June 29, 2023: However, 2 days later, Ms. Nuriddan is back to her typical integrity-focused mindset. Below are two texts from Nurridan to Krokoff. These are perhaps the most disturbing of the communications (among the many disturbing communications) in this blog post. Ms. Nuriddan indicates that Dubin and Cauley are seeking to influence her work outside of the normal public participation process and further that Ms. Nuriddan is to keep their influence a secret. Ms. Nuriddan is having none of it. As she has consistently done over many months, Nuriddin expresses her discomfort with issues of integrity and undue influence (from partisans and council members). Also troubling in these texts is the assertion that Krokoff has been assigning action items to Cauley. Furthermore, it is unclear what Mr. Krokoff thinks is so funny (with his ha ha’s) about a very serious matter.
June 30, 2023: It is fitting perhaps that the very last text from my ORRs is about the Milton Coalition. I must confess that I was pleased when I saw this text from Ms. Nuriddin about the Milton Coalition . . . proof that I am achieving my awareness mission. I find irony in Ms. Nuriddan’s failure to recognize that I am exposing the very issues (e.g., poor process discipline, lack of integrity) that she has been warning about over her several months of communicating and working with Milton.
If you have made it to the very end of this blog post, I commend you. I have spent many hours researching and creating this post. I love Milton and feel it is my obligation to expose the clear mischief that has been perpetrated in Milton through the elections design, planning, and implementation process. My hope is that Miltonites will take notice and act now that the ugly truth has been revealed.
Advocating for free, fair, and honest 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. This is partly because I believe partisanship does not translate well to the local level. And in any case, elections in Milton are supposed to be non-partisan. 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 served as a US Navy Nuclear Submarine Officer for nearly 8 years earning both the Navy Achievement and Commendation medals.) 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.
(Updated August 23, 2023 to reflect council’s actions in late 2021 to establish an “informal” elections feasibility committee. However, no vote was taken by council.)
Readers:
Through 7 Open Records Requests (covering the period January 1 to July 2, 2023) I have been able to piece together an astonishing story of Milton’s hiring and engagement of an elections consultant. And make no mistake about it . . . the basic integrity and fundamental fairness of elections in Milton are under serious threat.
Because I am having to sift through hundreds of pages of emails and texts, my exposure of myriad irregularities in Milton’s election design process is taking more time and effort than I expected. So I am breaking up my Election Interference blog post into 2 parts.Part 1 (this post) provides context needed to understand all the mischief entailed in hiring and engagement of Milton’s election consultant explained in Part 2.
This blog post is focused on the work of the Election Feasibility Committee (EFC). I think you will be shocked by many aspects of the EFC: its lack of expertise; its extreme partisanship; its secretiveness; etc. You will have to wait until tomorrow for Part 2, which I believe should result in firings, resignations, and bans on certain activists participating in city government (except as private citizens through the public process).
So here goes . . .
Considering that election integrity was the initial impetus for Milton to investigate running its own municipal elections, it is ironic that Milton’s process for designing and implementing its municipal elections has been permeated by a complete lack of integrity . . . dishonesty, secrecy, exercise of undue influence by partisan interests, etc. It is a lack of integrity that persists to this very day and should cause reasonable citizens to questions the basic fairness and integrity of Milton’s Fall 2023 municipal elections.
City of Milton Election Feasibility Committee (EFC). In the uproar after the 2020 presidential elections, which included allegations of corruption and incompetence in Fulton County, some citizens and politicians in North Fulton began to advocate for more local control of elections. It turns out that state law limits local control, and cities only have the option of running their municipal elections; right now, counties will continue to run county, state, and federal elections and ballot initiatives. In Milton, municipal elections occur in odd-numbered years. In 2021, the five sister cities of North Fulton County all began to investigate options to run their municipal elections. I am told the charge was led by Rick Mohrig in Milton. I expressed at the time that Milton running its own elections was a really bad idea. Weren’t there other more important priorities? In March 2021, the City approved a 5-year strategic plan. Nowhere in Milton’s strategic plan are elections mentioned . . . not a word. Unfortunately, elections were unwisely pushed to the top of Milton’s priorities. In late 2021, a committee was formed composed of 6 individuals: Council Member Rick Mohrig, Council Member Paul Moore, Lisa Cauley (President of Fulton Republican Women and holder of other Republican leadership positions), Mark Amick (also a Republican activist and one of Trump’s alternate/fake electors, who claims to have witnessed many 1000s of votes wrongly assigned to Biden during a recount while a poll watcher); Assistant City Manager Stacey Inglis; and City Clerk Tammy Lowit.
There were so many problems with this committee that it is hard to know where to start. First, it is unclear when, why, and how the committee was comprised. For example, why were incumbent city council members assigned—most especially city council members who would be running for re-election in 2023 and would be designing the very elections in which they would run? Why were two Republican activists assigned? Municipal elections are non-partisan. Nobody even knows (or will admit to) how Mark Amick was appointed to the committee. (Rick Mohrig appointed Lisa Cauley, so it stands to reason that Paul Moore probably appointed Mark Amick, but he’s not admitted it.) Did anyone at City Hall know that Amick was a fake elector? Did anyone check backgrounds? What election expertise/experience did these people bring? To my knowledge, only Mark Amick brought any elections experience . . . and just as a poll-watcher. Given the partisan composition of the committee and its lack of expertise, why would anyone trust the committee’s recommendations?
Citizens, it gets worse. The EFC followed none of the rules for committee establishment and operations. For many months, according to the Milton Herald, the EFC met in secret—i.e., there were no legal notices and no opportunity for public observance/participation. Even the Georgia Secretary of State’s office stated it was troubled by the EFC’s lack of transparency. Through Open Records Requests, the Milton Herald determined that the EFC met secretly at least half a dozen times. Worse, no records of these proceedings were maintained. The City waved off criticism by disingenuously asserting that the committee was “informal.” These are weasel words meant to deceive citizens. There is not a word or regulation in Milton’s Municipal Code that addresses “informal” committees and how they might function. It is a totally made-up notion meant to snow citizens.
At one council meeting where the EFC was discussed, then Council Member (now Mayor) Jamison probed and discovered the EFC was not following Georgia’s Open Meetings Laws. So what happened? Did City Council take the right and logical action: apologize, disband the EFC, and push the reset button? Answer: NO. No one on council even expressed any concern about the irregularities; rather Council ratified the existing committee and sent them on their merry way. No one seemed to have a problem with Council Members designing their own elections. No one had any issues with the EFC’s partisan make-up. No one cared about the EFC’s previous lack of transparency. If any governmental function requires an extraordinarily high level of integrity, transparency, fairness, and rigor . . . it is the design of elections. And on all counts, the City of Milton failed miserably. Milton’s Feasibility Committee was born in secrecy, dishonesty, incompetence and partisanship . . . themes that have persisted throughout the process to the present day . . . with predictable results.
The Milton Herald did a tremendous job identifying (through Open Records Requests) the issues associated with the clandestine Election Feasibility Committee. Following is a link to a great investigative piece by reporter Amber Perry:
Election Feasibility Committee (EFC) Report-Out to Council. I attended the presentation of the Election Feasibility Committee’s recommendations. Mark Amick presented the operational recommendations and Lisa Cauley presented the business case. And I have to say, even by government standards, it was a poor work product. I suppose it is easy to cut costs when you slash service levels and you ignore and underestimate costs. For example, the number of polling locations was reduced from 8 to 2. Eventually (after a polling place switch-up) District 3 was denied a polling place . . . the location where it makes most sense to locate a polling place due to traffic patterns in Milton. (Note: The EFC actually recommended a polling location in District 3 at the Milton Public Safety Center, but council added a District 2 location and rejected the District 3 location.) The City has actually been doing a decent job of tracking the variances to this original business case. Not surprisingly, the costs are creeping up. For example, an elections consultant was originally budgeted at $13,000; the City is actually paying $25,000. The City also did not budget for opportunity costs for use of (some) staff and facilities . . . apparently, they’re free in the world of government accounting. I could go on and on, but won’t belabor my point that the EFC’s recommendations and business case were underwhelming. I say this as a consultant who has worked with 60+ organizations and has developed many dozens of business cases over my career . . . and even written articles on how to develop business cases.
Tomorrow, I will publish Part 2 of the Election Interference in Milton. Stay tuned.
Advocating For Free, Fair, and Honest Elections . . .
Tim
Note: I have prided myself on keeping the Milton Coaltion Blog strictly non-partisan. In local politics and governance, I have always prioritized principles over party, politics, and partisanship. This is partly because I believe partisanship does not translate well to the local level. And in any case, elections in Milton are supposed to be non-partisan. 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. 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.
This is probably my shortest-ever blog post. Later today, I will publish a blog post that is going to rock the City of Milton to its core. The blog post’s revelations will be a political bombshell that will send shockwaves throughout the community! The post will be about Milton’s long-running and on-going process for designing and running its own municipal elections. If Milton’s behind-the-scenes election mischiefs and mistakes don’t shock you, nothing will.
Once again, Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore (Team M&M) are at the center of it all. These two council members remind me of Slim Pickens riding the thermonuclear bomb to the target in the Dr. Strangelove movie . . . in this case, the target being good governance in Milton. Through 7 Open Records Requests (3 submitted by the Milton Herald and 4 follow-up requests that I submitted), I have been able to piece together an astonishing narrative about Milton’s hiring and engagement of its elections consultant. After reading about the skullduggery involved, I don’t know how any reasonable citizen could have any confidence in Milton running free, fair, and honest municipal elections.
Buckle up and stay tuned! Milton is in for some rough turbulence . . .
Advocating For Free, Fair, and Honest Municipal Elections in Milton,
Tim
Note: The Moore and Mohrig camp are engaged in what might best be described as a False Flag operation meant to distract citizens from the elections story. Team M&M’s surrogates are ranting and raving about a casual political discussion that occurred at the conclusion of a DRB meeting when almost nobody was watching. It is a case of No Harm, No Foul. Their appeal to ethics is laughable and merely highlights their desperation.
Phil Cranmer has announced that he will challenge Council Member Rick Mohrig in the 2023 District 3 race for City Council. My initial impression is that Cranmer is a fine, upstanding, decent, and accomplished individual. Following are links to Mr. Cranmer’s campaign website, campaign Facebook page, and LinkedIn profile:
I am also providing a link to Council Member Mohrig’s LinkedIn page. I was unable to find an active political website or political FB page for Mr. Mohrig but will post them if/when they become available. Mohrig recently posted a Campaign Contribution Disclosure Report (CCDR) that indicates (as of the end of June) his campaign has recently neither received nor expended monies and furthermore, that he currently has $0 in his campaign fund. If Mohrig does run for re-election, it will herald the first competitive election in District 3 since 2011.
A few weeks ago, Doug Hene announced his run for the District 2 council seat. Hene and Cranmer’s candidacies are positive for Milton. Competitive elections will force much needed debate about the important issues facing Milton.
On paper, both Hene and Cranmer are formidable candidates. Milton’s 2023 elections may herald the final transition of city government from Milton 1.0 to Milton 2.0. Out with the old, in with the new. And make no mistake about it, Milton desperately needs a clean break with its dark political past. Milton would benefit from new representatives with fresh ideas.
Let me be direct. Council Members Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig represent the last rotting vestiges of the old regime . . . political dinosaurs limping along in Milton’s political landscape wreaking havoc as they lumber along. Both ran in Milton’s first council races in 2006. Mohrig ran unopposed and slid onto Milton’s inaugural council while Moore lost in a 5-person race (failing to make it to the run-off). In his only competitive race in his political career, Mohrig lost decisively to Alan Tart in 2007. However, Mohrig was able to slip back onto council through an appointment in 2013 to complete the term of Lance Large, who moved out of Milton. Thereafter, Mohrig ran unopposed in 2013, 2015 and 2019 and has now served 10 consecutive years on council. It’s enough.
Moving onto Paul Moore. Capitalizing on the momentum from Laura Bentley’s historic landslide victory in 2017, Paul Moore won election to council in 2019. However, Moore served on the Planning Commission since the city’s founding in 2006 and served as an operative in various campaigns since that time and his election in 2019.
I continue to believe that neither Moore nor Mohrig will seek re-election now that they have competitors. Due largely to the misbehavior of Moore and Mohrig over the past 15+ months, there is a strong anti-incumbent sentiment flowing through the electorate in Milton. Past elections demonstrate that Miltonites are not shy about showing rascals the door. The last straw for many voters (and for Mr. Cranmer, I am told) was the denial of a polling location for District 3.This colossal political blunder put a huge political target on Moore and Mohrig’s backs. Blame hubris or stupidity . . . probably some of both, in my opinion. I remind readers that Moore and Mohrig 1) led the Election “Feasibility” Committee and 2) supported eliminating a District 3 polling location in favor of a District 2 polling location and then voted against adding back a 3rd voting location (for District 3), along with Council Members Jan Jacobus and Andrea Verhoff. The hyper-partisan feasibility committee originally met in secret, keeping little/no records of these meetings. I have a real problem with current politicians designing elections (behind closed doors and leaving no records) in which they will run . . . who thought this was a good idea? (Note: Later election feasibility committee meetings were advertised and open to the public, and records were maintained.)
Let me again be direct. Moore and Mohrig (Team M&M) cannot run on their records. During the previous 15 months, Team M&M has wreaked havoc in Milton . . . intruding into minor HOA issues, engaging in serious unethical behavior, and designing unfair, nonsensical municipal elections. And my understanding is that there is more to come regarding Milton’s election design/implementation. Despite wrapping up their election feasibility work months ago, Moore and Mohrig apparently have continued to intrude (behind the scenes) in Milton’s election design/implementation–specifically the hiring of an elections consultant. Responses to Open Records Requests (ORRs) submitted by Appen Media show a disturbing pattern of intrusion, particularly by Mr. Mohrig. Additional ORRs are being processed that should shed more light on Milton’s hiring of its elections consultant.
So what does this mean for the 2023 election? It means Team M&M must distract voters from their sorry records, particularly their ethical misbehavior. They must find some incident—however insignificant—and blow it out to proportion so they can say “see, my opponent is just as unethical as I am.” It is the classic Make-A-Mountain-Out-of-a-Molehill strategy. Such an effort is currently underway regarding Tuesday’s DRB meeting. Former Council Member Laura Bentley appears to be one of M&M’s surrogates leading the charge on this DRB issue. I will write more about this DRB issue once I’ve gathered the facts. So far, my impression is that the DRB incident is much ado about nothing . . . almost entirely political posturing. It is like equating jaywalking to grand larceny. It is a strategy that assumes voters are morons and can be easily duped. Perhaps other places, this might work . . . but not in Milton. And through this blog, I will strive to assist citizens in applying the principle of proportionality to ethics in Milton.
Lastly, it is my hope that the entrance of two strong insurgent candidates in Districts 2 and 3 might encourage a similarly strong insurgent candidate to run in District 1 and challenge Council Member Carol Cookerly. A full slate of formidable insurgent candidates would be helpful to all candidates on the slate.
Following is a link to the City of Milton website where you can find candidates’ financial disclosure statements. These are interesting to see who is contributing, how campaign money is being spent, etc.
Today, in a terse one-sentence ruling, the Georgia Court of Appeals summarily dismissed Paul Moore’s appeal of his conviction on 3 serious ethics charges. (I am attaching the appellate ruling.) For this appeal, Mr. Moore hired additional high-powered attorneys that specialize in appellate court appeals . . . but to no avail.
In its ruling, the appellate court upheld the Fulton Superior Court’s earlier ruling. Those of us following the Paul Moore Ethics Scandal were not surprised in the least by the appellate court decision. Council Member Moore has now been brutally smacked down in 3 judicial venues. Justice has prevailed. The unanimous decision of Milton’s 3-attorney ethics panel stands.
I must admit that (even though we were once friends and allies) I feel little sorrow for Mr. Moore. . . for two reasons.
First, Moore’s conviction was an entirely self-inflicted wound. I truly believe that Moore had an at least an inkling that his actions were unethical but calculated that no one would have the moxie and money to challenge him . . . he was wrong. Early on, Moore could have manned up and the damage to him and the city might have been minimized. He chose otherwise and is now paying the price, as is the City. Moore’s incomprehensible perpetuation of this sad saga over 14+ months have only made matters worse for him and more importantly for the City. That gets me to my second point . . .
Second and much more importantly, Mr. Moore has visited tremendous damage upon the City through his selfish and quixotic quest for his distorted notion of justice in the face of hard facts. Non-stop bad publicity has hurt the city’s image. This scandal has also diverted scarce monetary resources (e.g., to pay legal expenses) and human resources (e.g., staff time). Worst of all, this ethics scandal, repeated intrusions into minor White Columns HOA issues, and most recently flaws in municipal election design/implementation have diverted City attention from strategic issues to minutiae, petty HOA quarrels, and hyper-partisan politics (including unreasonably unequal access to polling locations for District 3 voters).
It is unclear (to me) whether Paul Moore has any more avenues of appeal. Regardless, it seems Moore will likely become the first Council Member to be convicted of ethics violations in the Milton’s 17-year history. This is an ignominious honor for Mr. Moore and I think a result of Mr. Moore’s hubris in the face of incontrovertible evidence of his guilt. Given that Mr. Moore seems to have no realistic chance of overturning the latest ruling, now would be a good time for Mr. Moore to engage in some serious soul-searching . . . which I suspect is a foreign notion to him. Mr. Moore needs to place the priorities of the City ahead of his narrow personal interests. Quite simply, Mr. Moore should resign from City Council. Resignation is the only decent, honorable and respectable course of action and offers Mr. Moore an opportunity to preserve at least a shred of dignity in the face of his serious ethical breaches. I think a sincere resignation would allow Mr. Moore to exit government and politics on a positive—albeit muted—note.
While I believe Mr. Moore should resign, I strongly believe Moore will not resign but rather will resort to increasingly desperate campaign tactics. Politically, Moore resembles a wounded and cornered animal.Accordingly, I predicthe (or his proxies) will lash out at his political adversaries. Mr. Moore is up for re-election in the fall of 2023 . . . elections he helped design. (Think about the ethical issues of self-dealing associated with designing elections in which you will run . . . it is not hard to understand why District 3 was denied a polling location.) At least on paper, Mr. Moore’s competitor, Doug Hene, seems quite formidable. I suspect Mr. Moore’s political camp will seek to neutralize the ethics issues by dragging Hene into the mud. And in fact, rumors are flying that the Moore Camp is seeking to score some cheap political points based on a brief, casual (albeit inappropriate) discussion of politics initiated by the DRB Chairman (not Hene) that occurred at the conclusion of Monday night’s Design Review Board (DRB) meeting. (Mr. Hene sits on this board.) Based on the little I have heard so far about, it is a tempest in a teapot . . . a big fat nothing-burger. Stay tuned. The 2023 political season could get ugly.
My advice to Mr. Hene is take a deep breath and stick to the high road . . . for now. It might be best to ignore Mr. Moore and his proxies. As he has repeatedly demonstrated, Moore is his own worst enemy. And his vanishingly small band of political proxies will provide little help . . . they have proven themselves clever by half. Public opinion has turned decidedly against Moore; he will only hurt himself further (if that is possible) if he travels the political low road. Hene should be careful to not allow himself to be baited and pulled down into the mud. Hene should focus right now on defining himself, listening to citizens, and painting a positive vision for Milton.
Advocating For Good Governance,
Tim
Postscript: Please forward blog emails and blog links to other citizens. The upcoming election is critical to the future direction of Milton. It is important for citizens to understand the backstory of Milton politics, which I have been providing since 2015. The MC blog really provides the only in-depth analysis of Milton government and politics currently available to citizens. I strive to be factual and to base my opinions on careful weighing of the facts. The fact that I was once close allies with Paul Moore and Laura Bentley strongly attests to my independence. I broke with Moore and Bentley when I realized that they had abandoned the core principles that so many of us fought for in 2016 and 2017 and that we expressed in our votes for Bentley in 2017, when she won in an historic landslide victory. Neither Moore nor Bentley has even once written to me to dispute any factual assertion in my blog, which I believe is a testament to my dedication to getting at the truth in Milton. Of course, I always welcome the opportunity to correct any error of fact.
Since it first broke nearly 14 months ago, the Paul Moore Ethics scandal has brought a steady stream of shame to the City of Milton. Worse, it has distracted valuable government attention and resources away from much more important priorities. The scandal is like a bad accident . . . you want to look away but cannot seem to turn your head.
The City is making progress on some important issues, but unfortunately the City’s accomplishments are being shrouded by the ethics scandal, but also by 1) council’s obsession with petty White Columns HOA issues and 2) a deeply flawed, unfair, and dishonest election design/implementation process that is making Milton the laughingstock of North Fulton County. And at the center of all three fiascos are Council Members Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig, who have become Milton’s Frick and Frack of government dysfunction. It is difficult for me to see how Moore and Mohrig can survive challenges in the 2023 election considering their numerous and deep self-inflicted wounds.
I have promised to keep readers current about the ethics scandal. This includes providing source materials so that you can form your own judgments. (The Milton Coalition blog is the only place where you can find all these documents and a full compendium of the news stories about the ethics scandal.)
As reported in previous blog posts, Paul Moore lost his appeal in Superior Court. Following are links to two news stories that provide the details. The WSB Yahoo link provides the WSB video that was aired on local news.
Since Mr. Moore’s defeat in Superior Court, a few events have transpired.
First, Moore has submitted an appeal of the Superior Court decision against him. Mr. Palazzo, the ethics complainant, has submitted a response to Mr. Moore’s appeal. I am providing copies of both Moore’s appeal and Pallazo’s response.
Second, Mr. Palazzo has filed a motion in Superior Court to recover his legal and other costs. I am providing a copy of Palazzo’s motion. The Superior Court ruled that Mr. Palazzo could sue to recover his costs.
My understanding is that within 30 days the appellate court will decide whether it will consider Moore’s appeal. And it is likely that the Superior Court soon will decide whether Mr. Moore must reimburse Mr. Palazzo for some/all of Mr. Palazzo’s legal costs.
I will keep readers updated on further developments in the ethics scandal. And don’t forget about the Milton Coalition Bits and Pieces page where I provide additional analysis and commentary for citizens that want to dig deeper into the issues: Bits & Pieces: For A Deeper Understanding
It delights me to pass along some good news in Milton politics. (Please forward this email to family, friends, and neighbors.)
Doug Hene (pronounced “Haney”), a longtime resident of Milton, has announced his candidacy for City Council. Mr. Hene has filed a Declaration of Intent (DOI) to raise and spend money for his campaign. Hene has also issued a press release. Should Paul Moore run for re-election, Milton will have a competitive city council race for District 2, Post 2. This is good news. Competitive races force discussion and debate about important issues; help to ensure accountability; and theoretically should result in better representation.
Unfortunately, competitive city council races are relatively rare in Milton. Since 2009, less than 25% of council seats have been contested. Since 2009, there have been NO competitive District 3 races. Furthermore, lack of contested races in Milton is in marked contrast to Milton’s sister cities, where all races in 2021 were competitive. Milton’s lack of electoral accountability is often evidenced by incompetent and dishonest representation on city council. It is also evidenced by a lack of integrity and accountability among many City Hall staff. In the absence of consequences for failure, citizens have witnessed a proliferation of failure—the latest example being a $35M judgment against Milton in the wrongful death of a motorist resulting from the city’s gross negligence in maintaining its roadways.
Following are some useful links about Mr. Hene, including his LinkedIn profile, his campaign website (at this time, only a fund-raising page), and his DOI. I am also attaching Hene’s candidacy announcement.
Council Member Paul Moore has not yet announced whether he will seek re-election. However, in fairness to Mr. Moore, I am including links to Moore’s LinkedIn profile; his candidate website (there is nothing there right now); his campaign Facebook page (inactive since 2019); and his latest campaign finance report.At my Bits and Pieces page ( Milton Coalition Bits and Pieces Page), I provide my prediction about whether Moore will run and my opinion about whether he should run . . . the answers might surprise you.
As I did in 2021, I will eventually create a separate page at the blog that provides candidate information for all council candidates (without any commentary) so that citizens have a one-stop-shop for candidate information useful for making voting decisions. This will include candidate websites, LinkedIn profiles, newspaper stories, etc.
In 2023, there will be a competitive race in each of Milton’s 3 districts. We can only hope that other candidates will step forward to challenge the incumbent in District 1 (Carol Cookerly) and the incumbent in District 3 (Rick Mohrig). Both have run unopposed in their last 2 elections.
Advocating For Good Governance,
Tim
Note: I have never communicated with Doug Hene, but hope to engage him soon to better understand his candidacy. During the 2023 elections, I will offer all candidates for city council, including those running unopposed, an opportunity to engage voters through my blog.
In November 2016, a bright and promising young man was killed on Milton’s roads. His name was Josh Chang and he was a senior at Yale university. By all accounts, Josh was a young man who was going to accomplish great things in life. On Friday, a jury found the City of Milton (93%) liable for Josh’s death because of an obstruction (a massive planter) that the City allowed in its Right of Way. The City of Milton has been ordered to pay $30+ M to Josh’s family. This tragic event represents a low point in Milton’s history and should serve as a wakeup call to citizens that all is not well in Milton’s city government.
I will not provide details of the accident or the trial in this post. You can get the specifics from the following two stories from 11Alive and WSB:
Josh Chang’s death was tragic. And unfortunately, Josh’s death was also avoidable. Chalk it up to incompetence at Milton’s City Hall. Since 2015, I have been sounding the alarm about serious problems in Milton’s city government. I have exposed many instances of incompetence, corruption, and pettiness. This includes the surreptitious redrawing of city council district lines; multiple counts of egregious council member misbehavior; backroom dealings; and favors for friends in zoning matters. Instead of focusing on important issues, like public safety, Milton’s City Council is focused on minutiae, such as trifling HOA issues, granting favors to friends, and settling political scores. In fact, City Council recently made it nearly impossible for HOAs to install speed detection signs in their communities. This decision will surely make Milton’s roads more dangerous . . . worse, this decision was about settling political scores, not good policy.
Mr. Chang paid for Milton’s incompetence with his life. However, Milton’s citizens will also pay a high price for the City’s incompetence. The $30+M settlement means the average household in Milton will be on the hook for $2000 each. The city’s annual budget is only around $38M. The court’s judgment likely means the city will have to take on debt and taxes will substantially increase. And the city’s liability insurance—a paltry $2M—will barely help in paying off this heavy liability. And the judgment against the City begs the question of why the City did not negotiate a lower-cost settlement?
So what response should citizens expect from the City? I believe the City will provide its typical head-in-the-sand reaction to any negative press: silence and indifference. Maybe, they will ramp up their steady stream of look-good/feel-good posts at Facebook. Afterall, the judgement will be paid with other people’s money . . . your tax dollars. Do you think anyone at the City will be held responsible? Will anyone be fired? Fat chance! The City will stumble along in the usual fashion . . . fat, dumb, and happy. Nothing new here folks, move along. It is important to note that this accident occurred on the watches of current City Manager Krokoff and the city traffic engineer, who has since the accident been promoted to Director of Public Works. I have long asserted that basic accountability is lacking at City Hall. City employees who should be fired are rather rewarded with pay raises and promotions.
And of course, Milton’s City Council will do nothing. Council has completely lost its way. Over the past year, citizens have seen some of the worst misbehavior ever witnessed in Milton. Indulged and often supported by fellow council members, Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig have recklessly run amuck in the Milton City government—behavior that has resulted in huge amounts of negative press and public criticism (e.g., from the Georgia First Amendment Foundation). Paul Moore’s intrusion into petty HOA matters in his subdivision resulted in his conviction on three ethics charges. Mr. Moore and Mr. Mohrig were also members of a partisan elections committee that met secretly at least half a dozen times (and maintained no records of those meetings). Moore and Mohrig designed elections in which they will run in 2023 (should they decide to seek re-election), which strikes me as highly unethical. Their election design raises serious questions about equal polling access for Milton’s District 3 voters. And in the latest episode of questionable ethics, Mr. Moore is refusing to recuse himself from deliberations on zoning modifications being sought for the NW corner of Birmingham Crossroads, despite his deep involvement in 2018 in influencing the current configuration of the property in question. The net effect of Mr. Moore and Mr. Mohrig’s actions have been to bring disgrace to the city; to undermine the trust and confidence of citizens; and to distract the City from important priorities. And other fellow council members, particularly Andrea Verhoff and Jan Jacobus, have been willing accomplices. Moore and Mohrig’s non-stop nonsense and intrusions divert attention and resources from important issues . . . well, like road safety.
And the issue of road safety (and the Crossroads fundamental look-and-feel) will figure prominently in tonight’s City Council’s meeting. At that meeting, Council will take up the issue of 4 variances being requested by Curtis Mills, the owner of the NW corner of Birmingham Crossroads. Previously, Mr. Mills had been granted 12 variances (none of which I believe met Milton’s strict standards for hardship and should have been denied). And if Mr. Mills gets his way, the intensity of use of his property will be dramatically increased far beyond what I believe is supported by Milton’s zoning laws or is reasonable for the property. (Interestingly, Mr. Mills and Council Member Paul Moore were members of the Birmingham-Hopewell Alliance that helped develop and negotiate the Crossroads overlay that Mr. Mills is now trying to circumvent.) Traffic safety is a central issue . . . or should be. The proposed variances mean many more cars will enter/leave the NW corner, just yards from a future roundabout that cars will enter/exit at much higher speeds (relative to the current 4-way stop). Can city staff and council really be trusted to understand and objectively analyze the public safety (and other complex) issues involved in this zoning matter? Will the City once again put public safety at risk and create future financial legal liabilities for its citizens? Will council honor their oath to uphold local, state, and federal laws or will personal/political considerations drive their decisions? (See above photo of vehicle that failed to navigate a roundabout in Milton.)
The City’s actions in the case of Josh Chang’s death are not isolated (as they will likely tell you). In my next blog post, I will explain another situation at Birmingham Crossroads where the City ignored the state’s assertions that certain parking were not permitted, constituted a threat to public safety, and violated state law. The City did nothing to my knowledge. I have provided a preview of my next blog post at the Bits and Pieces page at the Milton Coalition Blog: Milton Coalition Bits & Pieces
Nothing will bring back Josh Chang. However, the city can honor his memory (and reduce future payouts due to negligence) by acknowledging issues of incompetence and corruption in Milton City Government and fixing them. Citizens can honor Josh’s memory by demanding accountability that is sadly lacking within the Milton government. This includes not re-electing wayward politicians such as Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore. Milton deserves better . . . much better.
Advocating For Public Safety and Clean & Competent Government,
Milton Coalition 