July 21, 2017

Perhaps, the most damning moment for Council Member Thurman in Monday’s City Council meeting was the City Attorney’s admission that he knew nothing about the redistricting when it occurred.  Following is the video.

Why is this important?  Because the City Attorney is the City’s expert on the proper government procedures.  This includes the process for changing the City’s Charter, which is akin to a municipal constitution.  He is the first person that Council Member Thurman should have consulted when she sought to change the district lines.  It is certain that he would have advised Ms. Thurman to put the change on a Council agenda and obtain approval from Council (as Representative Jones also initially requested).  Not only was the City Attorney not consulted about the district change, he was also omitted from all communications on this matter.  We believe this was intentional.  The City Attorney appears on none of the emails we reviewed.

It was clear that when Council Member Thurman asked the City Attorney about his awareness of the change, she was expecting a different answer.  However, the City Attorney was clearly not going to fall on his sword for Ms. Thurman.  And he is likely pretty steamed about being left in the dark about this matter.  On Monday night, his answers to Ms. Thurman were short and subdued; he was signaling to Ms. Thurman that he was not going to support her in this matter and that she needed to change the subject.

Of course, you can already see Ms. Thurman’s defense in her response to the City Attorney.  Clearly, she is going to blame the City Manager (who she states was very aware of the change) for not informing the City Attorney.  This is no defense.  City councilors routinely consult and communicate directly with the City Attorney on these sorts of matters.  And clearly this was a matter where Ms. Thurman was the point person for the change, so it was her responsibility to ensure the proper people were involved.  In any case, the first documented evidence of the City Manager’s involvement was an e-mail to him on the day the district change bill was introduced into the Georgia legislature.

Ms. Thurman has cast around for various people to blame or include as co-conspirators in this debacle:  Representative Jones’ administrative assistant, Representative Jones, the City Attorney, her fellow Council Members, the previous City Manager, and the Milton Herald.  And unfortunately, Ms. Thurman is also blaming citizens . . . it’s a classic case of not liking the message, so shooting the messengers.  At some point, Ms. Thurman needs to realize that the redistricting debacle is not everyone else’s fault.  Accountability rests with Ms. Thurman and Ms. Thurman alone.

Tomorrow’s post will be about the “smoking gun” in this scandal.

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim Becker

July 18, 2017

Author:  Tim Becker

We are posting video of last night’s Council meeting.  Council Member Karen Thurman went on a tirade that lasted over 10 minutes.  She insulted, patronized, and attacked the citizen-audience and embarrassed her fellow Council members.  Once again, she digressed from issues of policy and made personal attacks on citizens, even calling out one citizen by name multiple times.  It was a sad spectacle for the City.

About 30 Milton Coalition supporters attended; no one attended in support of Ms. Thurman.  Several citizens walked out in disgust before Ms. Thurman even finished her comments.  The attacks from Ms. Thurman elicited pushback from the audience several times.

The purpose of the Council agenda item was to discuss the City’s response to the Milton Herald’s story about changing District 1’s boundaries.  Council Member Matt Kunz pushed for this agenda item citing a single tweet from a citizen as the impetus for the agenda item . . . that’s right, a single tweet.  So please tweet your agenda items to Mr. Kunz . . . that is now how we are drafting City Council agendas . . . government by tweet.  You could tell from the City Attorney’s initial comments (in City-Attorney speak) that he was trying to wave off Council from pursing the redistricting topic.  He could clearly see the risk of embarrassment to the City—a risk that became manifest as the discussion proceeded.  However, Ms. Thurman came loaded for bear and was determined to fire all her ammunition, which she did.

Milton Herald Story: Milton Coalition Questions Redistricting

Ms. Thurman returned immediately to her themes of hatred, bullying, and negativity.  However, this time she did so without verses from the New Testament; this time, it was pure old Testament fire-and-brimstone stuff.  It was quite a nasty and personal attack on her critics.  At one point, the City Attorney, backed by the Mayor, warned Ms. Thurman that some of her comments were inappropriate and that she needed to restrain herself.

We suggest watching the video at least twice.  First, watch it with a focus on Ms. Thurman and ask yourself:  Is this really how a Council Member should interact with citizens, even those who have pointedly criticized her on policy?  The second time you watch it, focus on the other Council members.  If there is any doubt about Ms. Thurman’s impropriety, Council’s expressions, body language, and gestures demonstrate their shock, disgust, discomfort, disapproval, etc. of Ms. Thurman’s tone and comments.

Despite a mountain of evidence to the contrary, Ms. Thurman’s current stance is “That’s my story and I am sticking to it.”  We do want to address some of Ms. Thurman’s points.

• Thurman contends this district change only affected Council members because it did not affect how a single person voted (as voting is at-large), so there was no need to get citizen input. However, this is backwards logic.  At-large voting means all citizens vote for all 6 Council Members, regardless of district.  That means all 6 Council Members represent all citizens.  Therefore, there is no need to change district lines in order to represent any particular set of voters.  However, the district change did affect how citizens vote.  Ms. Thurman should have relinquished her seat because of her move, and an election should have been held to fill her open seat.  This did not happen, so the district change essentially disenfranchised all of Milton’s voters. Furthermore, it denied all of the voters in District 1 the opportunity to run for Ms. Thurman’s District 1 seat.
• Repeatedly, Ms. Thurman stated that at the time of the district change, she did not intend to move to the lot she purchased in The Estates at Atlanta National. She even stated that she did not know whether the lot was even buildable, but who pays $115,000 for a potentially unbuildable lot?  However, consider the following:
  • Thurman bought the lot in EAN on December 18, 2014.
  • By her own admission, Thurman lobbied Representative Jones to change the district lines before the legislative session began on January 12, 2015, so within a month of her purchase of the lot in EAN.
  • Thurman implies that this was purely coincidental. She contends she had no intent to move to EAN at the time the bill (to change the district lines) was introduced and passed.  However, consider this e-mail excerpt with Jan Jones on March 22, 2015 (3 months after she purchased her lot in EAN and a mere 4 days after the district change bill passed the Georgia House.)

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.

So in the 3 months after the lot was purchased, Ms. Thurman clearly had a plan drafted for her new home . . . this shows she did have an intent to move to EAN while district lines were being changed.  Because of septic issues, she had to have new plans drafted, which clearly solved the septic issues.  Furthermore, the e-mail excerpt implies that Ms. Thurman and Ms. Jones had previously discussed the home at EAN.  So it astounds us that Ms. Thurman continues to assert there was no intent to move at the time the bill was drafted, introduced, and passed.

• Thurman mercilessly attacked the Milton Herald. She accused the newspaper of creating fake news, of numerous factual errors, and of being a tabloid.  She went on to threaten the Milton Herald by asserting that the City should drop the newspaper as its outlet for legal notices.  She complained that the newspaper would not run her letter-to-the-editor at the same time as the story about the redistricting.  She also complained that she had to limit her letter-to-the-editor to 500 words . . . BTW, citizens are limited to about 300 words.  She complained about the length of comments from citizens at the on-line article, although she is free (like anyone else) to post comments there.  She complained that the newspaper did not follow her directives about how to write the story and that her comments were too few and provided too far into the story.
• The City Attorney revealed that he was not aware of the district change at the time it occurred. This was shocking as the City Attorney is the person most responsible for ensuring that Council follows good governance practices.  We did notice that Thurman left the City Attorney off the correspondence in the matter of the redistricting.  Had the City Attorney been in the loop, he likely would have steered Council in a different direction—e.g., urged Council to put the redistricting on a Council Agenda.  Was the City Attorney purposely kept in the dark?
• Thurman refused to conduct a town hall meeting with citizens to answer their questions. She explained that she had invited one citizen to meet with her and that citizen had refused.  That apparently was the public’s one opportunity to ask questions.  We don’t really understand the connection between one citizen’s refusal to meet with Ms. Thurman and Ms. Thurman’s refusal to hold a town hall meeting.  We suppose it is easier to just rant and rave from the City Council dais than engage citizens in honest dialogue.

We are also including Ms. Thurman’s speech from the citizens’ podium on July 10, 2017, which is also disconcerting to watch.

We are deeply concerned about Ms. Thurman’s behavior in the Council Chamber.  Ms. Thurman’s behavior seems designed to bully citizens into not speaking in opposition to her policies and her actions as a government official.  Screaming from the Council dais, calling out citizens by name, and referring to her critics as “hateful” is completely beyond the pale of appropriate behavior from a government official.

Also, we have become aware that Ms. Thurman has filed an Open Records Request (ORR) to obtain, for a two-year period, all communications between all members of all committees, commissions, and City Council and a member of the Milton Coalition.  This is clearly an attempt to dredge up information to discredit and disparage a citizen advocate.  Many hundreds of hours of government officials’ time will be wasted on a fishing expedition.  We will provide a future post on this issue, once we obtain a copy of the ORR.

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