July 15, 2017

Citizens:

On Monday night, City Council will discuss a response to the redistricting scandal that was exposed by the Milton Herald this past week.  The City Council meeting will begin at 6 pm on July 17th (Monday) at the new City Hall in Crabapple.

Milton Herald Article: Milton Coalition Questions Motives Behind Redistricting

Explainer: What If An Election District Got Changed And No One Knew About It?

It is critical that citizens show up to this meeting and speak (if the spirit moves them).  This is the most important City Council meeting since I began advocating for citizens 20 months ago.  It is time for accountability at our City Council.  If citizens allow Council to dismiss or otherwise diminish the wrongdoing associated with this redistricting, then wrongdoing will supremely and forever reign in Milton.  In the redistricting, virtually every principle of good governance was violated:  transparency, honesty, democracy, fairness, citizen-participation, competence/rigor, and due process.  And it is this same bad governance that is resulting in the ruination of our quality of life in Milton, with developers exerting outsized influence in our local government.

It is time for our City Council to admit that Milton has governance issues and to commit to fixing those issues.  If City Council is going to pass a resolution or generate some other response to the redistricting scandal, it needs to reflect that admission and commitment, not obfuscation and denial.

This issue is quite simple.  Milton’s Charter, which our municipal Constitution, was changed without a single citizen knowing about it.  How can the City defend that?

And why was the Charter changed?  Because Councilor Thurman was moving outside her district and did not want to lose her seat.  The evidence of this is overwhelming.  She lobbied Representative Jones less than a month after buying a lot (where she built her home) outside of the district and then immediately set about drafting a plan for her home.  Emails obtained through an Open Records Request clearly show this.  Furthermore, the real reason for the district change was known to at least some other Council Members, who have admitted it off-the-record.  (Hopefully, on Monday night, they will go on the record.)

Why does this matter?  Quite simply, Ms. Thurman should have relinquished her District 1 seat when she moved.  A special election should have been held to fill the vacancy.  Ms. Thurman’s deception resulted in the disenfranchisement of Milton’s 20,000+ voters.  Furthermore, Ms. Thurman’s deception denied the 7,000+ voters in District 1 an opportunity to run for that seat (and their prospective appointees the opportunity to serve on various committees.)

And most importantly, this sort of corruption has a corrosive effect on the public’s trust and confidence.  It is this sort of wrongdoing that makes people cynical about government.  And this erosion in trust has many ill effects, including encouraging more wrongdoing.  The culture of wrongdoing at the top of our government surely percolates to the lower levels of government.  So yes, changing the district lines does matter.

And do not let Councilor Thurman fool you with her malarkey about needing to change the district boundaries so that she could “represent” residents of The Estates At Atlanta National.  In Milton, voting for Council Members is at-large.  This means that all voters vote for all 6 Council Members, not just the Councilors from their district.  Accordingly and more importantly, all 6 Council Members represent all voters.  That means you can go to any Council Member with a request or concern.  In fact, as often as not, citizens choose to go to a Councilor outside of their district based on a friendship, that Councilor’s advocacy on a particular issue, a referral from another citizen, or myriad other reasons.  By her own admission, before the district change, Councilor Thurman was legally and legitimately representing the residents of The Estates at Atlanta National, and according to Ms. Thurman they readily came to her with issues.  So applying Ms. Thurman’s own logic, a district change was not required.  This issue of representation was contrived to disguise the real reason for the district change:  Ms. Thurman’s future move outside of her district.

Citizens, please attend Monday’s City Council meeting and consider speaking.  The future well-being of our City depends on it.  Never forget that it is your government.  Citizens are the masters; our elected officials are the servants.  On Monday night, we need to remind Council of that fact.  If you cannot attend for any reason, please express your opinions through emails to City Council and the City Manager.

Citizens, thank you for your support over the last 20 months.  Through your activism on behalf of good governance and smart land use, you have had a positive effect on Milton.  Your civic pride is encouraging candidates to come forward to challenge Councilors in Districts 1 and 2, the two districts affected by the district change.  Milton has not had competitive elections since 2011, which has fostered arrogance, disconnectedness, hostility, misbehavior, and a sense of entitlement in some elected representatives.  Competitive elections will ensure a proper debate about the issues facing Milton and give citizens a real choice for the first time in 6 years.

See you on Monday night.

Advocating For Citizens,

The Milton Coalition – Advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric government

Postscript:  Over 300 of you have viewed the video of Ms. Thurman’s Monday night speech and have been returning or sending others to watch it.  (You can scroll down to find it.)  Clearly, Ms. Thurman was trying to insulate herself from citizen outrage over the redistricting in advance of the Milton Herald’s article.  If you don’t like the message, make yourself out to be the victim and do everything you can to discredit the messenger, including citizens and the Milton Herald, which is being accused of creating Fake News .  That seems to be the playbook here.

July 14, 2017

Following is perhaps the most important email stream obtained through Open Records Requests, as it 1) sheds light on the behind-the-scenes machinations to change the district lines and 2) refers to a specific address as the impetus for the district change.  These e-mails are provided in chronological order.  At the bottom of this blog post is a pdf of the original source e-mails obtained through an Open Records Request, which includes Ms. Thurman’s letter to Representative Jones.  If you refer to the source document, you will need to read the e-mails in reverse order to understand the chronology.  This e-mail stream is important for the following reasons:

• It shows that Thurman was working with Representative Jones on changing the district lines well before she broached the issue with anyone on Council or anyone from the City. (The original request to change the district lines was made some time before the start of the legislative session on January 12, 2015–according to Ms. Thurman.)
• It is clear that the impetus for the redistricting was a specific address. (See Jan. 27^th e-mail from Gina Wright.)  What was this address?
• It shows that Thurman circumvented a transparent, deliberative, and democratic process to effect the district change. Over time, the threshold for obtaining support from Council ratcheted downward from an official letter from Council, requiring discussion and a vote, to a single letter from one Council Member (Bill Lusk) that was provided after the bill had already been introduced; at this point, the change was a fait accompli.
• This e-mail chain is indicative of Thurman’s use of personal and company email to conduct city business. This is an obvious example of non-transparency.  And it begs the question of whether there are other personal/company emails related to this matter that have not been provided?  And was there more to this email exchange than was provided by Ms. Thurman?  Where is the e-mail that provides the specifics (house number and street name or parcel number) for the statement “To take in that address . . . “?

Following is a synopsis of the e-mails, followed by the e-mails themselves (in chronological order) with some commentary.

• January 27, 2015: Gina Wright provides update on redistricting and refers to a specific address as the impetus for the redistricting.
• Feb. 12: Initially, Ms. Jones suggests a letter of approval from City Council.
• Feb 26: Ms. Thurman cautions that “something official” would need to be put on a City Council agenda.  Ms. Thurman suggests “something from individual council members” as an alternative, which would avoid discussion and debate at Council and passage of a resolution.
• March 4: Jones replies that letters from individual council members would be fine.
• March 4: Thurman lowers the threshold even more stating she will get “at least a couple of the other council members to get her a letter also.”
• March 4: Jones suggests that Thurman write the letters for Council members.
• March 9: Thurman still has not gotten any letters to Ms. Jones.  She states her intention to take letters to Council that Council members can sign.  Instead, Ms. Thurman emails a form letter to Council Members that she asks them to customize and send to Representative Jones.  Note:  On this date, HB 570 is introduced into the Georgia General Assembly, without any documented support from Council members.

Following are the e-mails (in chronological order).  Comments for each e-mail are provided in red.  Note that Beth Green is Representative Jones’ Administrative Assistant.  Messages from Rep. Jones are sometimes conveyed through her.

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

From: Wright, Gina

Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2015 10:24 AM

To: ‘Jan Jones’

Cc: Green, Beth

Subject: RE: Milton boundary adjustment

I made the change as you requested- it ends up moving a total of 182 people. The deviations are still under 2% so it’s fine to go this way if they prefer. Although it’s only 35 homes, the census block that contains that neighborhood also picks up the neighborhood further down New Providence Road that runs off of Gates Mill Way. This is all part of a single census block. This does not add any area to District 2.

I’m attaching an adjusted map and stat sheet for you to see. To take in that address, this is as minimal change as we could go.

Let me know if you have further questions.

Thanks,

Gina

Gina Harbin Wright

Executive Director

Legislative and Congressional Reapportionment Office

Georgia General Assembly

 

This email provides evidence that the redistricting was driven by a specific address:  “To take in that address, this is as minimal a change as we could go.”  What is this address?  It seems that part of the email chain (i.e., earlier emails) was not provided and would answer this question.  Where is the rest of this email chain?  Ms. Thurman or Ms. Jones needs to reveal the address (house number and street name) referred to above.  It is reasonable to assume the address corresponds to the lot purchased a month earlier in The Estates At Atlanta National by the LLC owned by Ms. Thurman’s husband.

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

From: Green, Beth [mailto:Beth.Green@house.ga.govl

Sent: Thursday, February 12, 2015 1:30 PM

To: Thurman, Karen

Subject: FW: Milton boundary adjustment

Karen: Please see that attached from our Reapportionment Office. If acceptable, Jan is requesting a letter of approval from the City Council. Please let me know if you have any questions. Beth

Originally, Representative Jones requested a letter of approval from the City.  This would have been the correct way to effect the district change.  It would have required the matter to be put on a City Council agenda and a resolution passed by Council.  The public would have been able to provide input.

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

From: Thurman, Karen [mailto:Karen.Thurman@frazierdeeter.com)

Sent: Thursday, February 26, 2015 2:04 PM

To: Green, Beth

Cc: Jones, Jan /

Subject: RE: Milton boundary adjustment

Beth,

I have spoken with City Manager Chris Lagerbloom and with the Mayor and all Council members but Joe Longoria. I hope to speak with Joe on Monday. What type of letter of approval is Jan looking for? If it is something official from the city then we will need to reflect it on a Council Agenda to discuss. If something from individual council members will suffice, all that I have spoken to have no objection and I believe they would be happy to send something to Jan.

Just let me know.

Thanks,

Karen

Karen Thurman, CPA I Partner

Frazier & Deeter

This is a critical e-mail.  In this e-mail, Ms. Thurman steers the discussion away from a transparent, deliberative, and democratic process.  As an alternative to an official letter of approval from Council, she suggests “something from individual council members.”  It would seem that Ms. Thurman wants to avoid a public and deliberative process that might expose the real reasons (i.e., her future move to The Estates at Atlanta National) and/or run the risk of public or Council opposition.  This district change very well might have prompted some citizens to speak out against the change. 

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

From: Green, Beth [mailto:Beth.Green@house.ga.gov)

Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 3:58 PM

To: Thurman, Karen

Subject: RE: Milton boundary adjustment

Karen: She doesn’t need an official resolution from the city but letters from individual council members would be fine. It has been advertised and will be introduced on Monday. Beth

Representative Jones agrees to accept letters from council members—we assume from all 7 of them.

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

From: Thurman, Karen [mailto:Karen.Thurman@frazierdeeter.com]

Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 06: 19 PM

To: Green, Beth

Subject: RE: Milton boundary adjustment

Beth,

Thanks! I have been very busy at work but will get Jan something this weekend. I have now spoken with all of the council members and there was no objection. I will get at least a couple of the other council members to get her a letter also.

Thanks,

Karen

Note that Ms. Thurman further lowers the threshold for gaining Council support by promising to get “at least a couple” of letters from council members.

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

From: Green, Beth [mailto:Beth.Green@house.ga.govl

Sent: Wednesday, March 04, 2015 7:31 PM

To: Thurman, Karen

Subject: Re: Milton boundary adjustment

P.S. Jan suggested you write the letter for them to sign … 😉

The suggestion to provide form letters speaks to a lack of rigor and seriousness around this matter.

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

From: Thurman, Karen

Sent: Monday, March 09, 2015 10: 10 AM

To: ‘Green, Beth’

Subject: RE: Milton boundary adjustment

Beth,

Please find attached the letter to Jan. We have a Council worksession tonight and I will get additional letters from other council members signed at the worksession. I will forward them to you tomorrow morning. Do you want me to put the originals in the mail?

Thank you,

Karen

It does not seem that these letters were actually provided at the work session.  Rather, Ms. Thurman sent an e-mail on March 10, 2015 soliciting letters from Council Members.  Only Bill Lusk complied, with a letter sent to Ms. Jones on March 10, 2015.  Since the bill had already been introduced into the Georgia General Assembly on March 9, 2015, the solicitation of these letters seems pointless and only intended to provide a veneer of legitimacy to the district change.  The district change was essentially effected through the joint efforts of Ms. Thurman and Ms. Jones, with virtually no input or involvement from Council . . . and no input or involvement from citizens.

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

Following is a pdf of the source file for the e-mails provided and discussed above.  It includes Thurman’s request for the district change, dated March 6, 2015 but sent on March 9th–the same day HB570 was introduced into the Georgia General Assembly.

Thurman-Jones Email Exchange #1

July 13, 2017

Thank you so much for your engagement on the issue of the changing of District 1’s boundaries.  Yesterday, the blog received over 500 hits, which is a record.  Thank you also for your e-mails, texts, and phone calls.  I appreciate your support.  I am encouraged that Milton’s citizens are demanding accountability from our elected representatives and are demanding good governance.  It is citizens like you that make Milton the number 1 community in Georgia.  And with your help, we will achieve our goal of making Milton number 1 in governance.

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

As promised, I am going to provide all of our research on the District 1 change.  Today, I am providing the before and after district maps and a timeline of events.  Tomorrow, I will begin providing some of the e-mails exchanged relating to this district change.  Many are quite interesting to read.

Electoral Maps

Click on the following link to view or download Milton’s electoral maps before and after the change in district boundaries.  These maps were provided by the Georgia General Assembly’s Office of Reapportionment.  (When you click on the link, you will see a drop-down hyperlink that you must also click to see the document.)

Before and After District Maps

Notes:

1. The change involved expanding District 1 to include the Estates at Atlanta National (EAN).
2. The change involved moving a total of 182 residents,
3. Gates Mill subdivision was also included, but this was because it was in the same census block as EAN, and census blocks are not supposed to be divided between districts.  Interestingly, the inclusion of Gates Mill, which was really an unintended consequence, is cited as a reason for the redistricting because all of the homes on Providence Road would be included in the District.  This reason is included in the form letter provided by Ms. Thurman to Council Members to customize (and send to Rep. Jones), but is not included in Ms. Thurman’s own request to Rep. Jones.  This reason replaces Ms. Thurman’s assertion that EAN was “closely tied to the Crabapple community,” which she must have realized was a ridiculous assertion (as Crabapple is several miles away from EAN).  This swapping out of reasons is interesting because a close reading of the emails shows that Ms. Thurman was really scratching hard to find justification for the district change.

Timeline of Key Events in Changing of Milton’s Election District 1 Boundaries

Following are the dates and explanations of key events in the changing of District 1’s boundaries.

• December 18, 2014. Taylor Road Vest LLC (owned by Council Member Thurman’s husband) purchases a property for $115,000 in The Estates at Atlanta National (EAN) to which Ms. Thurman eventually moves.  The lot was outside District 1, meaning if Ms. Thurman moved there, she would have to relinquish her seat unless the district lines were changed to include EAN.
• Early January 2015 (before January 12^th, the start of the 2015 legislative session). By her own admission, Council Member Thurman lobbies Speaker Pro Tem-pore Jan Jones to change District 1’s boundaries to include EAN (less than 1 month after purchasing a lot in EAN.)
• January 2015. Representative Jones office begins working with Gina Wright, the Executive Director of the Georgia Legislature’s Reapportionment Office, to craft a bill to change District 1’s boundaries to include EAN.  No staff from the City of Milton are ever involved in this work.
• January 27, 2015. Reference is made to inclusion of a specific address as the impetus for the change in district boundaries (in an e-mail from the Executive Director of Reapportionment to Representative Jones).  We assume this address corresponds to the lot bought by Ms. Thurman.
• February 12 – March 4, 2015. Jan Jones (sometimes through her administrative assistant) and Ms. Thurman conduct an e-mail discussion about whether to seek a City Council resolution to approve the change in District 1 boundaries and decide against it, deciding that letters from “a couple of other council members” will suffice.
• March 9, 2015:
  • HB 570 changing Milton’s District 1 boundaries is introduced into the Georgia General Assembly
  • Council Member Thurman’s letter to Representative Jones requesting a change in District 1’s boundaries is forwarded to Ms. Jones by e-mail.
  • Council Member Thurman sends an e-mail to Milton’s City Manager (copying Council) informing him that HB 570 is going to be introduced this same day. Thurman’s letter to Representative Jones requesting the district change is attached to the email.
• March 10, 2015:
  • Thurman sends an email to Council requesting letters of support for changing District 1’s boundaries. She includes a form letter that she asks Council Members to customize.
  • Bill Lusk sends letter of support for district change to Jan Jones. This is the only letter of support from another Council Member.
• March 18, 2015. HB 570 passes in the Georgia House.
• March 22, 2015. E-mail from Ms. Thurman to Ms. Jones discusses building of her new home and difficulties with the lot’s suitability for septic. It is clear that a  home plan has already been created, but a new plan will be needed to deal with the septic issues. The email indicates that Ms. Thurman and Ms. Jones had previously discussed Ms. Thurman’s building of her new home.
• March 23, 2015. HB 570 passes in the Georgia Senate.
• May 12, 2015. HB 570 is signed by the Governor and becomes effective.
• Early August 2016. Thurman moves into her new home in EAN.
• December 2, 2016. Ownership of the home built on lot (purchased in December 2014) in EAN is transferred from Taylor Road Vest (owned by Karen Thurman’s husband) to Ms. Thurman and her husband.
• December 20, 2016. Thurman’s previous home in Providence at Atlanta National is listed for sale.  Our understanding is that the house is being rented while it is being offered for sale.

Notes:

1. Notice that Ms. Thurman’s request to Ms. Jones for the district change comes on the same day that the bill to change the district is introduced into the General Assembly.  Ms. Thurman requests letters of support from fellow Council Members one day after the bill is introduced.  Given that the bill has been introduced, what is the point of the request and the letters of support?  Is it to give a veneer of legitimacy to matter?  And why were Council Members engaged so late?  Was it to minimize any opposition to the change–i.e., the change is essentially presented as a fait accompli, or done deal?
2. Notice that the threshold for support from Council continually gets lowered over time.  At first, a letter of approval from Council is requested, which would require the matter be put on a Council agenda and voted upon.  Then the threshold gets lowered to “letters from individual council members,” which gets lowered even more to “I will get at least a couple.”  And ultimately, only 1 letter–from Bill Lusk–is obtained.  So the threshold for Council support goes from an official letter that would be discussed and voted upon to a single letter from one Council member.
3. In her speech to Council from the citizens’ podium on July 10th, Ms. Thurman claimed 2 residences:  her previous residence in Providence at Atlanta National and her current residence at The Estates at Atlanta National.  In doing so, she is implying that she still maintains a residence within the original District 1 boundaries.  This is interesting, as her previous home has been listed for sale for over 8 months, and we understand there are renters in the home.  Ms. Thurman is clearly trying to insulate herself from an ethics charge and grasping at straws.  We even have Facebook postings of Ms. Thurman announcing that she has moved into her new home.

July 12, 2017

Following is an explanation of the change in the boundaries of Milton’s Election District 1.  This explanation is based on an exhaustive, months-long investigation.  Over the coming days, I will provide all of my research for you to read, so that you can come to your own independent conclusions about how and why this change in district boundaries was accomplished without voters knowing about it.  I believe that this matter speaks to non-transparency, arrogance, abuse of power, lack of integrity, and so many other elements of poor governance.

(At the blog, click on the menu icon in upper left-hand corner to subscribe to the blog.  Enter your email address and click the follow button.  You will receive e-mails of blog posts as they are published.)

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

Explanation of Change in Milton’s Election District 1 Boundaries

A change in Election District 1’s boundaries was effected in the first half of 2015.  Only a handful of Milton’s voters seem to know about this change.  This is not surprising as it never appeared on any Milton City Council agenda.  The change was never discussed nor debated at City Council.  No resolution was passed by City Council to approve this change to the City’s Charter.  At no point was public input sought; even from affected voters.  And citizens were never even notified of the change.  The change was not accomplished through either Home Rule or through the Charter Commission–the two accepted methods of changing Milton’s charter.  Rather the change was effected through state legislative fiat with almost no documented support from Council.  Mechanisms and practices of good governance were bypassed.  The apparent (but unstated) reason for this change in District 1’s boundaries appears to have been the future move by Council Member Thurman to The Estates at Atlanta National (EAN), which was just outside of the District 1’s boundaries.  Moving outside of District 1 would have required Ms. Thurman to relinquish her seat; changing the district boundaries allowed her to keep her seat.

Through a series of Open Records Requests and other research, the Milton Coalition has been able to piece together the story behind the change in the boundaries of Election District 1 in Milton.  This change to the District 1 boundaries was proposed and finessed by Council Member Karen Thurman.  It seems that Council Member Thurman lobbied Representative Jan Jones to expand District 1 (through legislation) to include The Estates at Atlanta National, a subdivision across the road from where Ms. Thurman was living in 2015 and which was then part of District 2.  This request to Representative Jones to change the boundaries seems to have been made in early January 2015 and was coincident with Ms. Thurman’s purchase (December 18, 2014) of a lot in The Estates at Atlanta National (EAN).  Ms. Thurman subsequently built a home in The Estates at Atlanta National to which she moved in August 2016.  If District 1’s boundaries had not been changed, Council Member Thurman’s move to the Estates at Atlanta National would have required her to relinquish her seat, as she would have no longer resided in her district.  Changing the boundaries of District 1 allowed Ms. Thurman to keep her seat on Council.  The documents that we reviewed indicate that Ms. Thurman never revealed her purchase of the lot at The Estates at Atlanta National or an intent to build a home there to which she would then move.  (However, some Council Members seem to have known about the move and its connection to the district change, presumably through conversations with Ms. Thurman.)  Furthermore, in responses to inquiries about this matter, neither Ms. Thurman nor Ms. Jones ever mentioned Ms. Thurman’s purchase of a lot in EAN and plans to move there.  Instead, Ms. Thurman asserted the following in a letter (sent March 9, 2015) to Jan Jones as justification for changing the district’s boundaries:

The Estates at Atlanta National and my subdivision Providence at Atlanta National are closely aligned with many of the residents of both subdivisions members of Atlanta National Golf Club.  Over the years I have worked with the residents of the Estates of Atlanta National on various issues related to zonings, setbacks and construction within the subdivision. The residents of the Estates of Atlanta National also are closely tied to the Crabapple community which is a large part of District 1.

No evidence is provided for any of these assertions.  Furthermore, these reasons for changing the district boundaries seem contrived.  Membership in a golf club is an obviously poor reason for redrawing our election districts.  EAN is several miles from Crabapple; we doubt residents would affirm Ms. Thurman’s assertion that EAN is closely tied to Crabapple.  No letters of support from EAN residents were sought or provided by Ms. Thurman to justify the change.

Rather, the evidence seems to show that Ms. Thurman made a case for changing District 1’s boundaries based on false pretenses.  On January 27, 2015, an e-mail to Representative Jones from Gina Wright, the Georgia Legislature’s Executive Director of Reapportionment, states “To take in that address, this is as minimal change as we could go.”  The implication is that changing of the district lines is being driven by the inclusion of a single address, presumably the address of the lot where Ms. Thurman eventually built her home and moved.  And in a later e-mail exchange with Representative Jones on March 22, 2015, Ms. Thurman states “We are still hoping to be able to build another house. The soil is not good on the lot so we are waiting to see if we can get another plan drawn up that will include bringing in soil that will perc,” referencing the building of a home on a specific lot, again presumably the lot in EAN where Ms. Thurman eventually built her new home.  Clearly, Ms. Thurman and Ms. Jones had previously discussed the building of this home.

Our assertion that the district change was based on false pretenses is further supported by the clandestine manner in which Ms. Thurman pursued the change in district lines.  Ms. Thurman directly lobbied Milton’s representative to the Georgia House, Jan Jones, to introduce a bill in the Georgia legislature (HB 570) to change District 1’s boundaries.  In so doing, Ms. Thurman bypassed the normal means for changing Milton’s charter:  1) through the Charter Commission, which meets every five years or 2) through Home Rule, whereby Milton’s City Council would pass a resolution to change the district lines.  Instead, the changing of Milton’s District 1 boundaries was accomplished through state legislative action.  This ensured there would be no discussion, debate, or vote at Council.  The district change was never included on any City Council agenda.  Milton citizens, including residents of The Estates at Atlanta National, were not given any opportunity to provide input.  In fact, citizens were never even notified (not even the residents of EAN) of the change—before or after it was made.  To this day, only a handful of citizens know about district change.

The process for changing the district boundaries was non-transparent.  After being lobbied by Council Member Thurman, Representative Jones worked with the legislature’s Executive Director for Reapportionment to draft a bill to change District 1’s lines.  This work began in January 2015. No City staff were ever involved in this work.  Furthermore, it seems that the City Manager and City Council Members were only apprised of the district change right around the time that the bill was introduced.  There is no documentation of support from other Council members for the district change in advance of Representative Jones introducing HB 570 into the Georgia House on March 9, 2015.  In a March 4, 2015 e-mail to Jan Jones, Ms. Thurman does assert that she has “spoken with all of the council members and there was no objection.”  The City Manager is not mentioned.  However, it was only on March 9, 2015—the same day HB 570 was introduced–that an e-mail was sent to the City Manager informing him (and copying Council) that HB 570 had been introduced.  Ms. Thurman states “I wanted to make sure you were aware of my request in case you received any questions.”  It is only on March 10^th—one day after the bill was introduced–that Ms. Thurman sent an e-mail to Council members seeking letters of support (to be forwarded to Ms. Jones) for the district change, providing a form letter for Council Members to customize.  It seems that only one Council Member, Bill Lusk, actually wrote a letter of support for the district change.  And of course, no public input was sought, and citizens were not even notified of the change in district boundaries.

The e-mail correspondence further seems to show that not including the district change on a Council agenda for discussion, debate, and approval (including opportunity for public input) was intentional.  In one e-mail exchange between Ms. Jones office and Ms. Thurman, the need for an official City Council resolution is discussed.  Initially, Ms. Jones office requests a letter of approval from City Council.  Ms. Thurman responds that such a letter would require that the district change be put on a City Council agenda.  Ms. Thurman suggests an alternative “If something from individual council members would suffice, all that I have spoken to have no objection and I believe they would be happy to send something to Jan.”  (Note the lack of specificity about which and how many Council members were “spoken to.”)  Ms. Jones office responds that Ms. Jones “doesn’t need an official resolution from the city but letters from individual council members would be fine.”  Ms. Thurman responds “I will get at least a couple of the other council members to get her a letter also.”  And thus, with this conversation, Ms. Thurman and Ms. Jones decided that an important change to Milton’s Charter (akin to a city’s constitution) would be accomplished without any discussion or debate at Council; without a majority vote in Council; and without any public input or any public notification.  In fact, the bill was introduced with not one letter of support, not even from Ms. Thurman, who submitted her formal request for the district change only on the day that the bill was introduced into the Georgia Legislature.

Inquiries were sent to both to both Council Member Thurman and Representative Jones requesting their perspectives on how and why District 1’s boundaries were changed.  Ms. Thurman’s response was mostly a recitation of her previous rationale (provided earlier) for changing the district lines.  Ms. Jones response is nearly 3,000 words long and covers a lot of different topics–many not directly germane to core issues, including good governance.  However, neither Ms. Thurman nor Representative Jones make any reference to Ms. Thurman’s purchase of a lot in EAN, the building of a home on that lot, or Ms. Thurman’s subsequent move to that home.  Representative Jones was asked to provide all correspondence relating to the changes to District 1, but did not provide any such correspondence.  The length, tone, and comprehensiveness of Representative Jones’s response is interesting.  Ms. Jones is the second ranking member of the Georgia House of Representatives.  Her investment of so much time in a response to a constituent’s inquiry about possible wrongdoing is telling and perhaps indicative of concern about a non-transparent change being made to Milton’s Charter based on false pretenses.

The Milton Coalition has made every effort to gather as much information as possible, including:

• Making 8 open records requests.
• Speaking with Gina Wright, the Executive Director of the Georgia Legislature’s Reapportionment office. She provided before and after district maps for Milton.
• Inquiry of Council Member Thurman, to which she provided 2 responses.
• Inquiry of Representative Jones, to which she responded.
• Searching property records for real estate sales transactions.
• Searching the Georgia Secretary of State’s database of LLCs.
• Downloading HB 570 and conducting research on the progress of the bill.
• Researching the subcommittee proceedings for HB 570, including correspondence with the legislative liaisons for both committees.
• Researching Milton’s charter and the process for making charter changes.
• Attending all three Milton Charter Commission meetings, including providing public comment in 2 meetings.
• Researching good governance best practices.

It should be noted that the Open Records Request (ORR) process, by its nature, often does not yield good results.  It might aptly be described as looking for a needle in a haystack . . . pulling out one straw at a time.  You submit a request with search terms that may or may not yield the e-mails you want.  Sometimes, the search is too narrow and you get nothing.  And sometimes, the search is too broad and you get too much information—much of it irrelevant.  Turnaround time is 3 days, so iterations can take some time.

Further complicating our research was Ms. Thurman’s use of non-City email accounts.  In reviewing the responses to our ORRs, we noted that Council Member Thurman regularly uses her company and personal e-mails to conduct city business—the only Council Member who seems to regularly do so.  This is in violation of practices of good governance.  Ms. Thurman should only use her City e-mail account for city business.  Ms. Thurman’s use of personal and company e-mail is problematic because the City cannot search these e-mail accounts when it processes an ORR.  In the case of personal and company e-mail, in processing an ORR, the City relies on a Council Member to perform a thorough and honest search of their e-mails.  Of course, the potential for deleting or withholding e-mails exists, particularly if unethical or illegal behavior might be an issue.

It is important to know that Milton’s Charter provides the foundation and structure for Milton’s city government.  A city’s charter is like a municipal constitution.  Changes to the Charter, including modifying the description of election districts, are a serious matter requiring a rigorous, deliberative, democratic, transparent, and fair process that allows ample opportunity for citizen input.  Changes to Milton’s Charter are supposed to occur either 1) through the Charter Commission, which meets every five years, or 2) through Home Rule (i.e., passage of an official council resolution).  Some Charter changes (e.g., revisions to the description of election districts) are so important that require additional approval by the state legislature.  However, such legislative approval should not supplant initial legislative action by the City.

Advocating for Citizens,

Tim Becker

The Milton Coalition – Advocating for clean, competent, courageous and citizen-centric government

July 12, 2017

Citizens:

Following is a link to a Milton Herald article on the redrawing of Milton’s election District 1’s boundaries.  This district change is unethical and violates basic standards of good governance.  It is just plain wrong.

Milton Herald Article on Nontransparent Change to District 1’s Boundaries

First, thanks to the Milton Herald for covering this important story.

The basic story here is simple.  Ms. Thurman was moving outside of her district.  Within a month of buying a lot in The Estates at Atlanta National (EAN), Ms. Thurman lobbied Representative Jan Jones to change the boundaries of District 1 to include EAN.   This change allowed Ms. Thurman to keep her seat on Council.  To avoid scrutiny–both from Council and voters–this change was effected in a clandestine fashion.  It never appeared on any City Council agenda.  It was never discussed or debated at Council.  No resolution of support was ever passed by Council.  Citizens were afforded no opportunity to provide input or even notified of the change.  There was no documented support from Council members in advance of the bill’s introduction into the Georgia General Assembly.  To this day, very few citizens know about this changes, including those citizens added to District 1.

Later today, I will provide a detailed description of the District 1 change.  Over the coming days, I will provide all of my research–one exhibit at at time–to the public.  You can draw your own conclusions based on that evidence.  We are confident that you will come to the same conclusion that we came to:  The district change was effected under false pretenses and in a clandestine manner.

Thank you for your continuing engagement and your support.

Advocating For Citizens,

Tim Becker

The Milton Coalition–Advocating for clean, competent, courageous, and citizen-centric government

(Postscript:  Citizens, with the breaking of this story, it should be clear why Council Member Thurman addressed Council on Monday night.  She was aware of this article.  Her speech was a transparent attempt to insulate herself from the coming backlash by disparaging her critics.  It was all political theater.  If you don’t like the message . . . then discredit the messenger.)