Today, I am posting the second installment of a six-part series debunking Rick Mohrig’s defenses of his terrible record. Following is a link to Mohrig’s campaign web page dedicated to Highway 9. In a nutshell, Mohrig preposterously contends nothing much can be done about a metastasizing blight in his district (SE Milton) and provides a menu of excuses for his lack of results.
False Assertion #2: Little or nothing can be done about the ballooning commercial blight in the Highway 9/Deerfield/Windward corridor.
Mohrig has hoisted the white surrender flag regarding blight in SE Milton. Of course, Mohrig’s assertion that Milton’s hands are largely tied is absurd. The District at Mayfield in Crabapple (discussed in a future post in this series) is proving otherwise. The truth is that Mohrig has been mostly AWOL in efforts to re-invigorate Southeast Milton. His focus has been elsewhere . . . on election interference and on HOA minutiae. He has ignored his own district. To avoid blame for his gross negligence, Mohrig’s all-to-typical fallback is to offer flimsy excuses. Following is an extract of Mohrig’s Highway 9 campaign web page. Rather than man up for the blight in his district, Mohrig provides a litany of excuses. Read Mohrig’s explanation in his own words and ask yourself: Is this really the person Milton needs leading efforts to reinvigorate Milton’s largest commercial area? Yes, that was a rhetorical question!
Phil Cranmer has pledged that he will restore District 3’s commercial vigor. Let’s give Phil that opportunity. Vote for Phil Cranmer to re-vitalize District 3’s commercial sector. Cranmer will pull down Mohrig’s white flag of surrender and charge forward to revive SE Milton’s commercial area.
Advocating For Visionary and Aggressive Action to Reverse District 3’ Commercial Blight,
Tim
Note: I am including a pdf file that provides my refutation of all six of Mohrig’s defenses on his record on land use, elections, and campaign collusion. I urge readers to circulate this file to family, friends, and neighbors. We must NOT let Mohrig get away with distorting his record and smearing his opponent. You can also click the following link to go to a web page that provides the same information: Refuting Mohrig’s Two New Campaign Website Pages: Facts Matter and Highway 9
Voters, because of your relentlessness in questioning him about his record, Council Member Rick Mohrig has been forced to defend his terrible record. He is now furiously backpedaling and on the defensive. Thank you, citizens!
The ever-malleable Mohrig has slimily shifted from his unsuccessful strategy of ignoring his record to instead grossly distorting his record. In a few instances (the Ebenezer Road rezoning and denying District 3 a voting location), Mohrig actually (tries to) entirely flip the script and to morph himself from villain to hero. These are acts of desperation.
Mohrig has added two new defensive web pages to his campaign website. There is little factuality and lots of fakery. Provided below are links to both pages. You might be questioning why I would give Mohrig access to my wide readership. The answer is that Mohrig is his own worst enemy. His assertions (aka lies and innuendo) are easily refutable and further underscore the case for electing Phil Cranmer (and Carol Cookerly, who has strongly called out Mohrig for his bad behavior). Mohrig assumes voters are morons who can be easily duped. I hold the opposite opinion. I have always trusted the discernment of Milton’s voters . . . and I am confident they will elect Cranmer and Cookerly. It’s NOT a difficult choice. I am quite sure voters will NOT countenance a corrupt and dishonest hack politician like Mohrig.
Through anonymous emails and posts, Mohrig’s surrogates are parroting Mohrig’s lies and innuendo. Their anonymity begs the question: Should/will astute voters trust anonymous and clearly slanted communications that provide little/no substantiation or sourcing?
At a new web page entitled “Refuting Mohrig’s Two New Campaign Website Pages: Facts Matter and Highway 9,” I debunk Mohrig’s six defenses of his terrible record. You can view my new web page by clicking on the navigation menu in the upper left-hand corner of the blog, or you can click on the following link:
My next six blog posts will address Mohrig’s defenses of his record one-by-one. I first begin with Mohrig’s feeble defenses of his land-use record.
Long-time readers know that my steadfast position on land use is hardline. I would NEVER recommend any candidate that did not largely share my positions on land use in Milton. My positions are shared by Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly. Conversely, Rick Mohrig has an abysmal, documented land-use record . . . a record he is now twisting. At his campaign website, Rick Mohrig has made several egregious but also easily falsifiable assertions about land use in Milton. Today, I address the worst of these assertions . . .
False Assertion #1: Rick has protected Milton from high-density development.
This is the lie that most has me seeing red. Why? Because, I (along with former council members Laura Bentley and Julie Bailey) led the opposition to both rezonings to higher density housing that Mohrig SUPPORTED. In response to these existential threats to the community, I started this blog and posted two petitions that have garnered over 2,700 signatures. I KNOW the TRUTH . . . and so do the many citizens that engaged on these rezonings. In the instance of sewer being extended on Hopewell Road, Mohrig goes silent when asked about it. Following is a link to my blog post about this sewer extension:
In the second instance of sewer extension–the Ebenezer Road rezoning–Mohrig simply LIES, creating a completely fabricated narrative (that is the opposite of the truth) by ONLY focusing on the second Ebenezer vote where he REVERSED his first Ebenezer vote.I wrote an entire blog post debunking Mohrig’s heroic myth about the Ebenezer rezoning. Following is the link:
After repeatedly being called out, Mohrig has finally acknowledged the first council rezoning hearing for Ebenezer on April 25, 2016, and his vote for sewer extension (to allow higher density). However, he asserts that the April vote was the “first unofficial vote” in advance of a “final” vote in June. This is complete nonsense. There is no such thing as a “first unofficial vote.” It is completely fictional. Conveniently, Mohrig does NOT mention that Lockwood vetoed the first rezoning . . . and that is the only reason the rezoning appeared again before council on June 20, 2016, where Mohrig REVERSED his first vote to approve sewer extension and higher density. See the following from the Milton Herald.
Mohrig was the villain, not the hero, in the Ebenezer rezoning. Had Mohrig voted to DENY, the rezoning would have failed (in a 3-3 tie) . . . and Lockwood would not have needed to veto the rezoning. Instead, Mohrig’s vote to APPROVE was the deciding vote that kept this divisive issue alive for another 8 weeks, causing tremendous acrimony in the community.
Mohrig’s ginormous Ebenezer lie is quite audacious but also quite stupid. The Ebenezer rezoning set the stage for the biggest battle I have ever witnessed in Milton. Many hundreds of citizens were engaged on both sides of the Ebenezer rezoning. They know the truth, so I am flummoxed that Mohrig would float such blatantly false assertions. However, this sort of deception is classic Mohrig . . . he just covers up his initial lies with more and bigger lies. Mohrig thinks voters are stupid and easily duped. Prove him wrong by voting for Cranmer and Cookerly.
Tomorrow, I will debunk False Assertion #2: Little/nothing can be done about the increasing commercial blight in the Highway 9/Deerfield/Windward corridor. Stand by . . .
Advocating Against Sewer Extension and High Density,
Tim
Note: I am including a pdf file that provides my refutation of all six of Mohrig’s defenses on his record on land use, elections, and campaign collusion. I urge readers to circulate this file to family, friends, and neighbors. We must not let Mohrig get away with distorting his record and smearing his opponent.
The first week of early voting in Milton has ended. During the first 6 days of early voting, ONLY 387 citizens (about 65 per day) cast ballots at Milton City Hall. There are only 10 more days left of early voting. I urge citizens not to delay getting to the polls. Vote tomorrow for Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly (Team C&C).
As my blog readers know, since 2015, I have closely followed Milton city government and politics. Conservatively, I have invested at least 3,000 hours and over $15,000 in my advocacy for good governance and citizens’ prerogatives. I have published over 350 blog posts. I have spoken before council over 100 times. I posted 2 petitions that were signed by over 2,700 citizens who provided their email addresses for a large email database that I have used (sparingly) to amplify my good governance message. And I have paid a heavy personal price for my advocacy; I have (successfully) sustained many personal attacks. Thankfully, my investment has paid off. Blog traffic and email subscriber-ship are higher than ever. My email open rates and click-through rates demonstrate a high level of citizen trust and confidence. Last month, there were nearly 7,000 email opens and blog views. Thank you!
I hope readers will trust me when I tell you that the 2023 municipal elections represent an inflection point for Milton. The contrast between candidates could not be starker. I truly believe that the upcoming municipal elections are a referendum on good governance in Milton . . . a battle for the heart and soul of Milton. At the blog, I have published dozens of posts that describe the dire situation currently facing Milton: ethics scandals; election interference; intrusion into petty HOA issues; disrespect for city staff; and divisive partisanship. For the past two years, the citizens’ agenda has been hijacked in the service of petty personal agendas and in furtherance of the aims of narrow Special Interests.
Cranmer and Cookerly represent a clean break with the dysfunctionthat has roiled City Hall. Cranmer and Cookerly have a positive and uplifting message. Both support smart land use. This means strict interpretation of Milton’s zoning laws, strong fealty to Milton’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan, and proactive engagement with citizens on land use issues. Neither supports a Development Authority nor increasing density beyond what current zoning allows. Both support restoring trust and confidence in local government by raising Milton’s ethical standards and upholding strict accountability. Both support the highest standards of fiscal responsibility. Both support redoubling the city’s efforts to enhance public safety and to improve traffic flows in Milton. Cranmer and Cookerly will represent ALL citizens regardless of who they are, where they live, or their political leanings. Both stand squarely WITH citizens and AGAINST Special Interests, including radical political fringe groups.
Following are links to further information. I am also attaching pdfs of the case FOR electing Phil Cranmer and the case AGAINST re-electing Rick Mohrig.
Vote for a better future for Milton! Vote for Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly!
Advocating For Good Governance,
Tim
Note: My focus at the Milton Coalition blog has been on Phil Cranmer (and Rick Mohrig). However, I also support Carol Cookerly’s re-election bid. I have not devoted much effort to the District 1 race because Cookerly’s opponent strikes me more as a novelty (i.e., joke) sort of candidate rather than a serious, studied candidate. My sense is that Milton’s Lunatic Fringe recruited Ms. Gordon, but it’s hard to say . . . because she’s not running much of a campaign and she’s provided very little information about herself and what she stands for.
(Note: I have updated my earlier post to reflect refined costs that I received from a helpful citizen . . . these numbers reflect elections economics even worse than the economics in my original post.)
Keep the following in mind as you read this post. It is a certainty that, when all costs are considered and accurately estimated, Milton will spend nearly $470,000 on its elections . . . about $253,000 (or 117+%) more than Fulton County would have charged. Milton will spend $397,000 (or 550%) more than Election Feasibility Committee’s cost estimate! And this is for much lower service levels: fewer early voting hours; few polling locations; and no options to early vote outside Milton. This is a scandalous waste of your hard-earned tax dollars! A vote for Rick Mohrig is a vote for gross financial irresponsibility. Taxpayer-voters, read on . . .
Yesterday, the Milton Herald’s Amber Perry published an excellent analysis of Milton’s elections costs that now shows that Milton will pay more . . . much more . . . to self-run its elections than if it had paid Fulton County to run its elections. Right now, the cost exceeds FuCo’s by 29%, or $63,000+. Costs will rise a lot more. Why? First, some costs are not (yet) included. Second, the City continues to encounter issues not anticipated (or not fully appreciated) by the Elections Feasibility Committee (EFC). Following is a link to the Milton Herald article:
For months, I have been predicting this large cost overrun. And no, I am not a financial wizard. However, I have assembled and reviewed more than my fair share of business cases . . . and written multiple articles for professional journals on this topic. I am attaching one of those articles at the bottom; Milton violated nearly every one of the fundamental tenets for creating a credible business case. It became clear to me with regards to the elections business case that “the dog would not hunt.”
And as you read the following, bear in mind that Milton is providing a much lower service level than Fulton County would have provided. So taxpayer-voters will be paying MUCH MORE FOR MUCH LESS.
Polling locations reduced from 8 to 2 (but eventually increased to 3 after strong public outcry)
Reduced early voting hours from both the EFC’s recommendation (206 hours) and Fulton County’s early voting (169 hours) to 149 hours. For example, Sunday voting was eliminated.
Early voting can no longer be done outside Milton (at Milton City Hall). Previously, 40% of early voting occurred outside Milton . . . 30% of it in Alpharetta.
I watched Lisa Cauley’s presentation of the EFC’s business case in December 2022. (Cauley was a member of the EFC.) I was underwhelmed to say the least. I knew there would be enormous future problems. It was clear that costs had been underestimated or entirely excluded. Not a penny was estimated for staff costs. There was no risk analysis. We now know that city staff was pushed aside by some of the other EFC members, and the staff-developed draft of the final report was materially altered. The public was not provided any opportunities for input on the final report, which was not put to a vote by the full committee. It is unclear who exactly assembled the final business case . . . was it just Ms. Cauley? We do not know because there is scant record of how the final report was developed.
The shoddy final report is exactly what you would expect from a committee that was biased and lacking in elections (and other required) expertise. It was clear that the EFC had a simplistic view of a quite complex matter. After the EFC disbanded, those charged with planning, preparation, and execution had to deal with this complexity (e.g., myriad state rules) and its associated costs (and risks).
Readers might recall that EFC members Lisa Cauley and Rick Mohrig predicted cost savings of (over) $200,000 and $250,000, respectively. Consider these figures in light of Fulton County’s estimate of $216,565 to run Milton’s municipal elections (Source: Milton Herald). Accordingly, Mohrig’s $250,000 savings estimate is an impossibility! It would mean Milton is turning a profit of $33,500 on its elections! And Cauley’s estimate would mean elections would only cost around $16,500. Clearly, this is Voodoo Economics. Through an Open Records Request, I flushed out Cauley and Mohrig’s lack of substantiation of their highly inflated cost savings.
Further consider that the EFC estimated the 2023 elections would cost only $72,254, so the Milton Herald’s calculated costs are 288% higher (than the EFC’s estimated costs) and rising. Following is an excerpt from the EFC’s business case.
Note that FuCo’s costs for 2021 were projected to be $84,671. At the time, Paul Moore expressed outrage at this cost and cited it as a reason for his vote for Milton to run its 2021 elections. In August 2021, Moore and Mohrig were the only council members to vote FOR Milton running its 2021 municipal elections. In retrospect, FuCo’s price was a bargain. And considering how complex we now know elections to be, think about the disaster that would have ensued if Milton ran its 2021 municipal elections.
Citizens, it gets worse . . . much worse. Some large costs are not yet included in the Milton Herald’s analysis. My following assumptions are all conservative, so I suspect actual costs will be higher. Not included were:
Staff costs for October and November (and beyond). Assuming staff will devote the same amounts of time in October and November (as they have been recently allocating) and none after November 30th, this adds another $57,000 to the cost, bringing Milton’s total elections costs to $337,000. (I believe it is reasonable to assume significant time will be spent in the aftermath of the election on clean-up, lessons learned, reporting, analysis, continuing legal matters, etc.)
Staff time before January 1, 2023. Milton’s election initiative began in July 2021, so 18 months of staff time must be accounted for. For example, early on, staff conducted a back-of-the-envelope analysis of costs. Staff also participated in the EFC. If we assume Inglis, Lowit, and Krokoff devoted just 5% of their time (2 hours per week) over these 18 months, then a conservative estimate of total staff time is 450 hours. At a blended rate of $84.00 per hour, the additional costs come to around $38,000, so the total elections costs increase to $375,000.
Benefits loadings for staff. This is standard practice in formulating business cases. Provision of subsidized health insurance, retirement, etc. are real costs. Conservatively, this benefits loading adds (at least) 35% to the staff costs, so that brings fully loaded staff costs to $326,000 and total elections costs to $459,000
Additional unanticipated costs, especially additional legal costs. Unanticipated costs have been par-for-the-course and have been steadily rising. The city has three pending legal complaints at the state elections board. Very conservatively, I am adding $10,000 to arrive at $469,000 for total elections costs.
So minimally, Milton will spend $469,000 to self-run its municipal elections. And again, this cost is for much lower service levels than FuCo would have offered. So Milton will be spending:
Infinitely more than Mohrig asserts, because his cost savings estimate of $250,000 implies Milton is turning a profit on its elections! An impossibility.
2900+% more than Ms. Cauley’s cost savings estimate would imply.
550% more than the EFC’s 2023 cost estimate.
117% more than Fulton County would have charged.
And Milton will be offering reduced service levels:
93% fewer early voting locations, as the only early voting location is at Milton City Hall. It should be noted this is inconvenient for many Milton voters, as it does not conform to Milton’s North-to-South and West-to-East traffic patterns.
62.5% fewer polling locations . . . reduced from 8 to 3
28% fewer early voting hours. This includes elimination of Sunday voting.
Note also that municipal elections occur in odd-numbered years. In even-numbered years, Milton’s elections will still be run by Fulton County. This means entirely different polling locations and significantly different voting days/hours. And if in an odd-numbered year, there is a county, state, or federal ballot initiative or race, either FuCo will run the entire election or voters will have to travel to two different locations to vote. Yes, it will be confusing.
So who is the blame? Well, there is a lot of blame to go around. However, the lion’s share of blame falls on Milton’s Election Feasibility Committee—primarily Council Members Mohrig and Moore and the two citizen appointees. As we have discovered through extensive research, these four committee members lacked expertise and were highly biased. They also marginalized staff EFC members and dismissed/discounted alternative perspectives and facts that did not fit their narrative. Accordingly, the EFC’s recommendations were poorly supported and biased (or more accurately predetermined). Council was sold a bill of goods.
The person most singly to blame for these vast cost overruns is Rick Mohrig. Milton’s elections project was his brainchild. He was the leader of a radical fringe element in Milton that was seeking revenge for what it perceived was a stolen 2020 presidential election—aided and abetted by Fulton County elections authorities. At first, cost savings were mostly a secondary concern. However, over time, as Milton’s election project became steeped in incompetence, dishonesty, non-transparency, and partisanship, Mohrig backed away from his integrity and competence arguments (for Milton self-running its elections). Mohrig began asserting that cost savings were the only driver of Milton’s elections project. What say yea now Mr. Mohrig?
Since late July, I have been pursuing Mr. Mohrig and Ms. Cauley on this issue of cost savings. I even submitted ORRs to get their substantiation of their alleged cost savings. You can hear Ms. Cauley’s cost savings projections by watching the July 24th city council meeting. She asserts “overwhelming findings on how the city would save the taxpayer what we now know is over $200,000.” Fast-forward to minute 10:00.
July 24, 2023 City Council Meeting . . . Forward to 10:00 For Cost Estimate
Mr. Mohrig has consistently asserted even higher cost savings of $250,000. However, as he often does, Mr. Mohrig has completely reversed course and is now stating there might be savings. At the recent Appen Media debate, he stated “I think we’re going to be actually saving money” as if to say cost savings were never expected but rather would be a pleasant surprise. Voters, this is an Olympic level of political double-talk and deceit. Forward to 1:21:37 in the debate video.
It is interesting to note that nowhere at Mr. Mohrig’s campaign website, campaign Facebook page, etc. does he make the first mention of elections. This is intentional. Mr. Mohrig knows he is vulnerable on the issue of elections. What he hoped would be his signature achievement has become his signature failure. And the less it is discussed, the better. (The same can be said of ethics and accountability. Mohrig never mentions it, despite its looming presence in Milton’s government over the past 2 years.)
Voters, Milton’s elections project has been a disaster from its inception. As I have documented in 20 posts, Milton’s elections initiative has been wracked by dishonesty, non-transparency, partisanship, and incompetence. The result has been shoddy and biased election design and planning. And now we are discovering that Milton’s election initiative has wasted a lot of hard-earned tax dollars.Mr. Mohrig often and adamantly promotes his fiscal chastity, while he promiscuously wastes your hard-earned tax dollars. It is time to give Mr. Mohrig the boot.
Please forward to family, friends, and neighbors. Every Milton voter needs to understand the huge waste of tax dollars resulting from Milton’s failed election project.
Advocating For Election Integrity and Fiscal Accountability,
Tim
Note: The Milton Herald does not provide detailed calculations. I have assumed its figures and calculations are correct and have used its data and cost estimates as a starting point for my calculations and cost estimates. I have created a spreadsheet that I will clean up and format and then provide to readers for their verification and use. I will post the spreadsheet at Bits & Pieces.
I believe that my assumptions overall are conservative, meaning I believe that elections costs are even higher than I projected. However, even if my cost estimates are a bit high, the overall message is the same: 1) Milton is paying much more for its elections than it would have paid if FuCo ran its elections and 2) the EFC wildly underestimated elections costs.
Early voting begins tomorrow: October 16th. Milton’s 2023 municipal elections are seminal . . . comparable to the 2017 elections. This election is really about the heart and soul of Milton. The choices could not be starker. Does Milton continue its steep downward trajectory and crash-and-burn or does Milton pull out of its nosedive and soar upward? Do citizens want a continuation of the extreme dysfunction, dishonesty, drama, partisanship, and pettiness that has wracked local government for 2+ years? Or do citizens want to restore sanity to government . . . and return to non-partisanship, competence, integrity, and strategic focus? Beginning tomorrow the choice is yours.
Anyone paying attention knows that for the past two years, it has been one bad story after another in the Milton Herald and other media outlets. Some of the city’s dysfunction has to do with council’s penchant for interfering in petty HOA issues. This interference resulted in ethics charges against Paul Moore. The resulting shameful ethics scandal dragged on for 15 long months. Despite spending $100,000 and filing multiple appeals, Moore was unable to beat the rap on 3 ethics charges. Worse still has been Milton’s badly tainted elections project, which has been permeated by dishonesty, partisanship, non-transparency, and incompetence. It is Milton’s elections project, particularly denial of a third polling location, that has caused average citizens to take notice, to push back, and to demand change at City Hall.
I have created two new pages at the Milton Coalition Blog. One page is The Case FOR Electing Phil Cranmer and the other page isThe Case AGAINST Re-electing Rick Mohrig. Attached to this blog post are pdfs of these web pages for distribution by readers to friends and neighbors. Please do you part to return sanity to local government.
Following is a link to my one-stop shop for voting and candidate information. This Voter Information page is my one blog page/post that is not colored by my opinion. Provided here are candidate websites, Facebook pages, and LinkedIn pages. You can also access the government website for mandatory campaign finance reports to view who donated and how much; money raised and spent; etc. I have provided information on where to vote and voting dates/hours. Also included is a link to the video of the recent Appen Media candidate debate. I particularly recommend viewing the debate’s closing statements, which highlight the stark choice between Cranmer and Mohrig.
Most importantly, vote for Phil Cranmer for City Council. Voting is at-large, so EVERY Milton citizen can vote for Phil. Early voting starts October 16th and election day is November 7th. Make your vote count . . . Vote For Phil Cranmer.
Advocating For Clean, Competent, Courageous, and Citizen-centric Government,
Tim
Note: My focus at the Milton Coalition blog has been on Phil Cranmer (and Rick Mohrig). However, I also support Carol Cookerly’s re-election bid. I have not devoted much effort to the District 1 race because Cookerly’s opponent strikes me more as a novelty (i.e., joke) sort of candidate than a serious, studied candidate. My sense is that Milton’s Lunatic Fringe recruited Ms. Gordon, but it’s hard to say . . . because she’s not running much of a campaign and she’s provided very little about herself and what she stands for.
When I first began promoting Phil Cranmer’s candidacy, I must admit that my support was more anti-Mohrig than pro-Cranmer. However, through Cranmer’s statements, his debate performance, his social media posts, and some conversations (I’ve had) with him, I have come to know, respect, and admire Phil. He is an impressive person. Phil is genuinely smart, kind, committed, and humble. He is a dedicated family man and community servant. He is married with two young daughters. He is President of his HOA and has served for 8 years as Mohrig’s appointee to Milton’s Parks and Recreation Advisory Board. I can only assume Mohrig must see the same qualities in Phil (his appointee) that I see. Phil is an accomplished corporate executive that will bring much needed business acumen and experience to city council.
Phil will tell you that initially he was a reluctant candidate. However, he became increasingly alarmed by dishonesty and dysfunction in Milton’s City government. He felt unease with rising and senseless partisanship and division. He sensed a growing distance between citizens and local government. Phil was dismayed by a city council that was ignoring strategic priorities to instead address petty and personal issues. He saw a city bogged down in a long-running ethics scandal and threatened by the rising influence of Special Interests. Phil was especially troubled by many and serious problems in Milton’s municipal elections initiative. The last straw for Phil (and also Doug Hene) was city council’s adamant rejection of a third polling location in District 3, which Mohrig represents and where Phil lives. To make matters worse, two weeks after the vote, a small hyper-partisan mob appeared (as they often do) before city council to gratuitously gloat and to blast council members that voted for a third polling location. It was at this time that average citizens began paying attention and rebelled at the ugly political situation in Milton. At this point, Phil (and Doug Hene) felt a civic duty to run. Thanks to both Phil and Doug!
So it is with great pleasure that I heartily endorse Phil Cranmer for the District 3 City Council seat. He is the right person at the right time. Following is my one-page summation of Phil’s positions on issues facing Milton. It is my Phil Will list. (I did not collaborate with Phil on this endorsement or my list). I am including a pdf file of my Phil Will campaign flyer (at the bottom of this email/post) in hopes that my readers will forward it to friends and neighbors. Milton needs Phil Cranmer.
Advocating For Clean, Competent, Courageous, and Citizen-centric Government,
The Milton Coalition Blog has always and intentionally been non-partisan. And this blog post is a plea fornon-partisanship in Milton . . . or more precisely a return to non-partisanship . . . and some semblance of political sanity.
In writing this post, I feel it is incumbent upon me to explain my political leanings. I am lifelong staunch Conservative. My conservatism is of the durable kind. It begins with John Locke, flows through the Founding Fathers, and finds modern expression in thinkers like Frederic Hayek, Milton Friedman, and James Q. Wilson and in leaders like Barry Goldwater and especially Ronald Reagan. I care nothing for contemporary talking heads on the far right and the far left who dispense partisan infotainment and won’t warrant even a footnote in the history of politics. I understand and appreciate that Conservatism’s foundational tenet is maximizing and protecting liberty . . . and that government’s primary purpose is to secure our liberty. This means true Conservatives unwaveringly believe in limited government, low taxes, entrepreneurship, individual responsibility, strong defense, and free trade. Unfortunately, true conservatism often gets diluted/polluted by nativism, nationalism, crony capitalism, protectionism, moralism, censorship, and sometimes even authoritarianism. Which brings me to Milton’s Lunatic Fringe . . .
The rabid radicals that have run amuck in Milton are NOT Conservatives in any sense of the word. They identify as Republicans, although Republican is a label anyone can facilely apply to themselves. Milton’s Lunatic Fringe are best identified as far right-wing extremists . . . so far to the right that they fall off the political spectrum. Ironically, they most closely resemble—at least in their tactics—their brethren on the extreme far left. (See political horseshoe graphic above.)
Milton’s Lunatic Fringe don’t think or act like the other 99% of us—whether conservative or progressive or somewhere in between. They reside in constant state on blind fury; they lack basic self-control. This result is often combative behavior, such as harassing and brashly confronting those with whom they disagree. For example, after the October 4th debate, several radicals antagonized council candidate Cranmer. Of course, we have seen extreme expression of their rage in clearly (and constitutionally unprotected) libelous speech at council and recent death threats to the mayor, which one recent speaker at council dismissed as “manufactured.”
The Lunatic Fringe are paranoid and conspiratorial in their thinking. Accordingly, they operate in secretive ways in Milton. They use aliases and congregate on clandestine social media platforms. Even within their underground social media groups, they are creating private chat groups, with admittance based on clearing especially high benchmarks for partisan purity. They have even engaged in Soviet-style purges of members that don’t meet their extremist partisan standards or that have blasphemed against their ideological orthodoxies. The leaders of these groups have exempted themselves from their own published standards of conduct; they routinely post derogatory posts. These radicals mostly think and communicate in memes. You won’t find content on their sites even remotely resembling logic and facts. They publish and deliver anonymous newsletters to our driveways. Their primary means of engaging opponents are personal attacks and confrontationsmeant to intimidate. They cannot refute their opponents’ arguments, so instead resort to cancel-culture techniques of shouting down or impugning the credibility of their adversaries . . . the other 99% that do not agree with them.
Many of these radicals have forsaken democratic means for achieving their objectives. They’ve given up on America. Some in Milton even unpatriotically fly the US flag upside down. Even though they give lip service to “election integrity,” they do not perceive elections as a vehicle for expressing the popular will but rather as a malleable instrument for achieving their partisan agenda. We have experienced this approach right here in Milton. Over the past two years, we have witnessed a process for elections design, planning, and preparations that was steeped in controversy and that was rife with dishonesty, secrecy, and extreme ideological bias. Facts and logic were summarily sacrificed at the altar of petty partisanship. City staff were disrespected, marginalized, and ultimately excluded. The result was an election design that made voting less convenient for ALL voters and especially inconvenient for Milton’s least well-off citizens (even with the addition of a District 3 polling location). And shockingly, these much lower election service levels will come at a higher cost than if Fulton County ran Milton’s elections. A similar lack of integrity now permeates Rick Mohrig’s political campaign, with its fake forums; meetings with poll workers; and attempted use of governmental authority to suppress his opponent.
Sadly, for the past 2 years, Milton’s vanishingly small band of political radicals has strongly influenced politics and government in Milton. They compensate for their small stature with fanaticism and hysterical antics. They seek to infect Milton with the divisive and dysfunctional Washington DC-style partisanship that most of us have come to loathe. Unfortunately, for too long, this Lunatic Fringe was indulged by a weak city council that appeased them. Weakness is provocative . . . appeasement only emboldened these radicals and their handlers. Through its indulgent responses to Milton’s manic mob, council let the barbarians through the gate. Provided encouragement and cover by Council Members Moore and Mohrig, these partisans infested Milton City Hall, interfering (often in the shadows) in Milton’s elections project. However, they overplayed their hand.With the denial of a third polling location, average Milton citizens—both Conservative and Progressive–began to pay attention and were repulsed by what they were witnessing. These normal citizens—the other 99% of us-–rebelled . . . and we have been fighting back and winning. Thankfully, the Lunatic Fringe has been (mostly) exorcised from city government, although troublingly a few have been hired as poll workers. With their power slipping away, they are now desperate. Like a wounded and cornered animal, the Lunatic Fringe will likely resort to increasingly extreme misconduct between now and election day. We saw this with the death threats to the Mayor and his family. Could it get worse? And we’ve seen it with increasingly vitriolic tantrums at council. If Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly are elected, the radicals know they will be demoted to the status of plain ordinary citizens and their glory days at City Hall will be over. Additionally, the FULL truth about Milton’s elections project will finally be revealed.
So what’s wrong with partisanship? Well, from both a practical and policy perspective, partisanship really has no place in Milton. I have been involved in city politics and government since 2014 and I have never once witnessed a policy issue that broke along party lines. Even Milton’s election initiative needn’t have been divisive. Unfortunately, for reasons that are still not entirely clear, Milton’s government deviated from its rules for committee formation and formed an ideologically biased elections committee . . . with predictable results . . . infection of city politics and government with divisive partisanship that soon metastasized throughout Milton’s body politic. This partisanship–along with the shameful Paul Moore ethics scandal and council’s preoccupation with petty HOA issues–has distracted city government from its strategic priorities. Worse, partisan chaos is providing welcome cover for corruption and for special interests to exercise influence. The only path back to non-partisan sanity and civility is to elect Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly. A rejection of partisanship requires a rejection of Rick Mohrig.
In closing, I urge citizens to watch two videos that I am confident confirm the dangers I have described above. First is a video of general public comment at Monday’s City Council Meeting. Eight uber-angry speakers spewed 40 minutes of conspiratorial, delusional, and (sometimes) just plain weird venom. These hyper-partisans have been regularly ranting at council for over two years. Their increasingly tedious tantrums foreshadow a city government under a Rick Mohrig regime . . . a municipal version of dystopia. Forward the video to 12:30.
The second video is of Wednesday night’s candidate debate. If you have just 5 minutes, I would suggest that you watch Cranmer and Mohrig’s closing statements.
Cranmer was crisp and specific. He did not pull his punches. Cranmer painted a stark and compelling contrast between himself and Mohrig. Cranmer called for an end to destructive partisan drama in Milton and a return to sanity. It was masterful. Conversely, Mohrig gave a bland, mealy-mouthed, and uninspiring closing statement. Mohrig came across as just another stereotypical say-nothing/do-nothing hack politician. Forward to 1:37:00:
Milton’s upcoming elections provide an unambiguous choice for city government between 1) continued partisan chaos and rancor with a focus on minutiae and appeasing Special Interests or 2) restoration of non-partisan cooperation and civility with a focus on strategic priorities and citizens’ prerogatives. It is not a difficult choice. Please vote for political sanity . . . Please vote for Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly for Milton City Council.
Advocating For Non-Partisanship and a Return to Political Sanity,
(The original post has been corrected. The original post stated that Mohrig voted for the CLUP. A sentient reader pointed out that Rick Mohrig was actually not at the council meeting when the CLUP was approved. He was absent . . . no reason given. Accordingly, it is unknown how he would have voted had he been in attendance.)
Sorry for the higher volume of blog posts, but it is election season. And my guess is that blog readers are hungry for information . . . beyond the mindless memes that I have seen at one local double-top-secret Lunatic Fringe Facebook page.
Today, I want to directly take on the issue of Development Authorities. It seems that candidates Hene, Cranmer, and Cookerly are being painted as supporters of a Milton Development Authority. This Development Authority is being characterized as an entity that would essentially approve/manage all development in Milton. It would be mostly comprised of developers who would have full authority over development in Milton. Elected officials (i.e., City Council) would be mostly or entirely removed from development decision-making.
I first heard about a Milton Development Authority at Candidate Helen Gordon’s campaign website. Ms. Gordon asserts that “She will rally against a Development Authority that will further remove Milton residents from decisions that affect their homes.” Well. (BTW, Ms. Gordon is also pro-puppy, enjoys Oxygen, recycles, and is adamantly opposed to slavery.)
Ms. Gordon is a California transplant who has lived in Milton . . . all of 3 years; she is a city government neophyte. (City observers tell me she attended her first city council meeting after she announced her candidacy.) So I assumed Gordon was struggling with terminology and perhaps she was referring to Milton’s Community Development, which is the department in Milton that processes development issues and brings major zoning matters to council for discussion and approval/disapproval. However, it turns out that Development Authorities are a topic that really is being discussed in Milton. At Monday night’s City Council meeting, several Mohrig supporters railed against this Development Authority that was supposedly lurking in their opponents’ campaign platforms. I have searched high and low at candidate websites, Facebook pages, campaign mailers, etc. and I have found nothing that would indicate support among ANY of the candidates for a Development Authority. I also know that candidates Cranmer and Hene have stated their firm opposition to a Development Authority. (I do not know candidate Cookerly’s official stance but have found nothing that would indicate she is supportive.)
However, not to be deterred, I continued my search. Somewhere in the vast reaches of Milton—other than Ms. Gordon’s vanilla campaign website—surely, I would find this elusive Development Authority . . . and perhaps Bigfoot. I next consulted the City of Milton’s website. First, I used the search engine. I came up with bupkis.
Next, I consulted Milton’s strategic plan. Surely, if Development Authorities are important, they are to be found there. The search results came up 0/0, so again nothing. BTW, there are no references to elections in Milton’s strategic plan either, so citizens need to press Mohrig about why he took us down that bottomless rabbit hole, especially because he frequently references the strategic plan as being the city’s guiding document.
Plunging deeper into Milton’s city website, I consulted Milton’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). And Eureka! I found five—yes, five—references to a Development Authority. So finally, I had found a legitimate reference to a Development Authority (but I did not find Bigfoot). Below is a montage of the 5 references. Nowhere is a Development Authority described, but it is a project scheduled for 2025/6. The word “pursue” is obviously vague. The paragraph in the upper right-hand corner is from meeting minutes recorded for the 6th CLUP committee meeting held on April 29, 2021.
So yes, there is admittedly some cause for concern. So here is where things get interesting. It is important to understand the CLUP committee is a large committee (17 members I think) that includes city council members as liaisons. Guess who they were? Former council member Laura Bentley and current council member Paul Moore . . . now big Mohrig supporters (but previously big Mohrig despisers) . . . and aligned with the folks that are howling in protest about Development Authorities. If anyone on council should know about Development Authorities, it is Paul Moore and Laura Bentley. I usually do not repeat hearsay, but I am told that Bentley has been whipping up citizens on this topic of Development Authorities.
So my suggestion is that citizens concerned about Development Authorities, especially Mohrig supporters, write to Bentley and Moore (Mohrig’s boosters) to ask what are Development Authorities, why they voted for them, why they are now opposed, and what evidence they have that Hene, Cranmer, or Cookerly support Development Authorities. Following are their email addresses:
I admit that it is entirely possible that there is other documentation in Milton about Development Authorities, and it is possible that some candidates may have expressed support in some form or fashion. However, so far, I have found nothing besides what I provided above. If citizens find any other documentation about Development Authorities, please send it to me and I will post the information somewhere at the blog. Thanks.
My sense is that the Mohrig campaign is using the Development Authority issue to detract from Mohrig’s poor record on land use, which includes voting to extend sewer multiple times (despite vowing not to). And my hypothesis is that this Development Authority hysteria has been mostly manufactured to win cheap political points. It seems to be a political bogeyman. We’ll see . . .
Advocating For Truth in Politics and Government,
Tim
Postscript: Long-time readers know that I got into city politics back in 2015 because of land use issues. Readers know that I have near-zero tolerance for rezonings, variances, and other zoning hijinks. And my strict stances on land use are why I severed my partnership with Council Members Moore and Bentley, when both supported nearly 30 variances at Birmingham Crossroads—none of which were justified. Based on my extensive experience, I am confident that this notion of a Development Authority, as it has been explained to me, would have ZERO chance of being approved by City Council . . . ZERO. Again, I think a Milton Development Authority is probably just a political bogeyman and nothing more.
Note: The original post was corrected to reflect that Council Member Rick Mohrig was absent from the council meeting when the CLUP was approved. Upon being notified of the error by a friendly, I immediately corrected the blog post and posted a correction notice at the top of the blog post. And I do occasionally make factual errors. Since I began the blog, my policy is to promptly correct all factual errors. Over the years, I have had to make about a half dozen such corrections. Interestingly, only allies have ever notified me of errors. My adversaries frequently grouse about the MC Blog being fake news or spreading disinformation, but never once have they notified me of any factual errors. Enough said . . .
On October 4th (Wednesday), Appen Media will host a debate among the candidates running for Milton City Council in the 2023 elections. I urge citizens to attend. The debate will be live-streamed, so you can watch it at home. However, I would encourage voters to attend in person. The Appen debate will be a real give-and-take debate with opportunity for rebuttal. No topics will be off limits, including Rick Mohrig’s record.
Attendance is not just about becoming a more informed voter . . . attendance is (more importantly) about taking a firm stand for clean, transparent, and honest politics and government. If you have been regularly reading this blog, you are already aware that Council Member Rick Mohrig and his cronies recently organized a phony debate. It was a not-so-clever trick to avoid a real debate. One of the fake forum’s rules—you really cannot make this up—was a prohibition against questions about Rick Mohrig’s record . . . using weasel words, the sponsors stated that “any question targeting one candidate will NOT be asked.”
So who will be attending the Appen debate? Last I heard from Appen, Helen Gordon stated she would not attend, citing a previous commitment. Thank Goodness for previous commitments! Gordon’s performance at the phony debate was abysmal. You would think an acting coach and drama professional could at least fake it better. I can only guess at how poorly she would perform in a real debate. Last I heard, Rick Mohrig had not responded to Appen’s invitation to the debate. I hope I am wrong, but I doubt Mohrig will show. He cannot and will not defend his poor record. After all, that was the whole point of Mohrig’s fake forum . . . to avoid a real debate where he might have to explain his poor performance and misconduct as a council member.
MOHRIG’S FAKE FORUM (PART 2): Investigation Reveals Even More Fakery
And speaking of the phony debate, on September 18th, I posted an exposé about the (September 27th) fake forum. However, through further investigation, I uncovered much more dishonesty and deception. Read on . . .
The Concerned Citizens for Georgia (aka the Mohrig campaign) circulated flyers to advertise their phony candidate forum. The flyer is attached. The forum organizers have been incompetently trying to fool citizens into believing they are a legitimate and non-partisan group, when they are clearly just an extension of the Mohrig campaign. This is typical duplicity for the Mohrig campaign and raises some potentially actionable ethical and legal issues (that I won’t broach here but may take up with elections/ethics authorities). Of course, with my initial investigation, I blew the cover of the organizers and proved the illegitimacy of their CCGa. So CCGa pivoted to a slightly different name in their flyers. Concerned Citizens for GA substituted “for” with “of” . . . they became the Concerned Citizens OF Georgia. The following was printed at the bottom of the forum flyer in tiny font.
Unfortunately, the slight name change did not work either. There is . . . or (more accurately) was . . . a Concerned Citizens of Georgia. However, Concerned Citizens of Georgia was administratively dissolved by Georgia’s Secretary of State on September 9th. You really can’t make this stuff up!
Concerned Citizens of Georgia still has a Facebook page (with 14 followers), but the last posting was in March, so there is no mention of CCGa’s phony forum. Furthermore, there are no postings or other information that would indicate that CCGa has ever organized political debates, as the forum organizers asserted. So the second name was also a bust . . . another swing and a miss.
The CCGa did proceed with their phony candidate forum at Saint Aidan’s church. Rick Mohrig signs lined Cogburn Road on the approach to the church . . . a clear sign of the organizers’ partisanship. Interestingly, in the run-up to the debate, Mohrig’s internet trolls tried to pressure Mohrig’s opponent Phil Cranmer into participating in the debate . . . he and Cookerly did not take the bait.
Karen Dubin’s Plan B did not work . . . so onto plan C . . . yet another name change. This time, the phony forum organizers opted for a more radical and corny name change . . . drum roll . . . Concerned Citizens Horse Country. It is just one more transparent but failed attempt to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for the organizers. However, an internet search provides just one result that provides no information about this political group. (Note: It does seems this CCHC group did organize a debate for the Congressional 6th District in 2022. However, it is unclear who they are and their actual affiliation with organizers of this debate. No information is provided at the one site I found. This lack of transparency is typical Mohrig.) Following is a photo of the sparse crowd just as the “forum” was breaking up.
Oh, and Karen Dubin, who organized this phony forum under another of her names (Karen Gwyn) has once again changed the name she is using. She is now Karen Zlotnick. She posted the following at Nextdoor. And when she posted this, Ms. Dubin/Gwyn/Zlotnick knew that Ms. Cookerly had already declined (because she was attending her mother-in-law’s memorial service out-of-town) and Mr. Cranmer had not responded. Never let the truth get in the way of a good lie . . . or even a bad, transparent lie. Zlotnik’s announcement that Cookerly and Cranmer were attending was just a ruse to goose attendance. It did not work. Attendance was sparse.
This is the deception and secrecy we have come to expect from Mohrig’s political comrades . . . fake names, fake organizations, secret Facebook groups, anonymous publications, etc. It is the same deception and backroom machinations we have witnessed from Mohrig on council.
Citizens, this is just how Mohrig operates. It is 24×7 treachery . . . and as you can see, he and his cronies are not very good at deception. Their dishonesty is only exceeded by their incompetence. It is so easy to expose Mohrig and his comrades that it is not even fun anymore. For 2+ years, they have been caught countless times with their dirty hands in Milton’s cookie jar.Mohrig’s campaign mirrors his never-ending misbehavior on council. So far, we have witnessed Mohrig and/or his minions using governmental authority to suppress his opponent; meeting secretly with poll workers and then inventing a hacking story to cover up the meeting; using internet trolls to harass and bait his opponent; and orchestrating a phony candidate forum. I believe that with these tactics,Mohrig and his associates might have engaged in actionable ethical and legal violations . . . and this includes the organization and conduct of the phony campaign forum.
As always, I am providing all of my source materials, so readers can judge these matters for themselves. I am confident that you will arrive at my conclusions.
Advocating For Campaign Integrity,
Tim
Note 1: In fairness to Ms. Dubin or Ms. Gwyn or Ms. Zlotnik (or whatever name she is using this week), in the past, Ms. Dubin has organized (I am told) at least one legitimate candidate forum/debate.
Note 2: I strive not to name or even reference private citizens in my blog posts. This is because I do not want to dissuade average citizens from participating in local politics and governance. However, Dubin is critical to telling the story of Milton’s election fiasco. Furthermore, Dubin is a partisan activist leader. Accordingly, Ms. Dubin is political figure and thus is fair game. The same is true for Lisa Cauley.
(Note: I am updating this post to reflect additional research, attendees’ accounts of the forum, and the forum’s aftermath. See the PART 2 at bottom of this post.)
I have been involved in Milton politics and government since 2015, so I have developed a sensitive nose for BS. I can sniff out a political set-up or dirty trick from a mile away. So I had myself a good chuckle when I was recently forwarded an email “invitation” (all quotes intentional) for a candidate “forum” sponsored by “Concerned Citizens for GA” that was sent to all four candidates in Milton’s upcoming city council races. I laughed because this political ploy was so clumsy and amateurish. Just what you would expect from the not-so-clever tricksters organizing this forum. (The invitation is provided at the bottom of this post.)
Upon reading the invitation, alarm bells started ringing and red flags began popping up. First, the invitation arrived out of the blue to candidates Cookerly and Cranmer. A forum had been established, including date, times, format, rules, etc. Everything was set . . . take it or leave it. And some of the rules struck me as odd, especially the rule that “Any question targeting one candidate will NOT be asked” . . . a rule custom-designed to protect an incumbent from answering any questions about his record . . . namely Rick Mohrig, who has an abysmal record that he does not want to debate. It struck me that this forum was really intended to pre-empt a real give-and-take debate that might ask tough questions and allow opportunities for rebuttals.
My suspicions aroused, I began to research the Concerned Citizens for GA (CCG), which asserts it is “group of grassroots citizens . . . not affiliated with any political party.” I googled Concerned Citizens for Georgia (both spelling out “Georgia” and using “GA” as used in the email invitation) and I found literally nothing . . . ZERO search results.
However, with a just little digging, I did find revealing information about the “Event Chair” . . . a Karen Gwyn. Ms. Gwyn is a partisan activist better known in Milton as Karen Dubin. I assume based on Google searches that Gwyn is her maiden name (although “Zlotnick” also turns up in Google searches as a last name for Ms. Dubin.) A half a dozen searches connected Gwyn to Dubin. See White Pages example below:
I suppose that Ms. Dubin is using her maiden name to evade candidates’ radars. Nice try . . . a swing and a miss. You see, Ms. Dubin is closely tied with Rick Mohrig, so she is not the neutral sponsor she implies. You might recall that Dubinfigured prominently in the Milton’s Election Interference Scandal. Ms. Dubin was the person who first introduced (in January 2023) Mohrig to Vernetta Nuriddan, the consultant that Mohrig forced upon the City Manager and who was subsequently terminated by the City . . . costing Milton precious election planning time (and money). Later, in May 2023, Dubin interfered in contract negotiations with the elections consultant, pressuring the consultant to sign a contract with the City. Obviously, someone at the City was improperly sharing information with Dubin. Mohrig is the most likely suspect considering how he strong-armed the City Manager into hiring Nuriddan. Despite Ms. Nuriddan’s annoyance with Dubin’s meddling, Dubin continued to interfere with Milton’s election planning once Nuriddan had been hired, but Dubin requested secrecy. According to Nuriddan, Dubin called her (June 2023) to advise her not to mention Lisa Cauley to staff. Nuriddan expressed concern about Cauley and Dubin wanting to work “in secret.”
Attached at the bottom of this post is a pdf file with excerpts (from my blog post) about Dubin’s interference in the hiring and engagement of Milton’s elections consultant. You can access the blog post by clicking on this link: Election Interference (Part 2): Backroom Tampering in Hiring and Work of Milton’s Election Consultant. BTW, Ms. Dubin is also Recording Secretary of Fulton County Republican Women; Lisa Cauley is the president. So Dubin is not non-partisan as she claims. Similarly, an internet search of the moderator also indicates that she is a partisan activist leader.
For Karen Gwyn—aka Karen Dubin—to try to disguise herself off as a non-partisan, neutral, and objective sponsor of an elections forum is laughable, but more troubling it is dishonest. Dubin is a close Mohrig associate . . . and I suspect Mohrig had advance knowledge of Dubin’s ploy.
My understanding is that Cookerly responded that she could not attend the forum because of a prior commitment (i.e., a memorial service) and that Cranmer has not responded and therefore (it should be assumed) will not attend. Let’s see if Dubin (and Mohrig) move forward with the forum under the false pretense that both candidates for one or both races will be attending . . . a dishonest means to drum up an audience for Mohrig. Perhaps, Dubin and Mohrig will try to score some cheap political points by asserting Cookerly and Cranmer were no-shows and snapping a few photos of empty debate podiums.
This sort of campaign trickery is to be expected from Mohrig and his associates like Karen Dubin. Mohrig’s unethical and dishonest behavior on council is now being reflected in his campaign. The deceptive candidate forum only further highlights the need to reject Mohrig at the polls in November.
There is some good news. I am told that Appen Media is going to organize a legitimate give-and-take debate . . . the sort of debate that Mohrig does not want and cannot win . . . I predict Mohrig will be a no-show. The real debate, sponsored by Appen, is scheduled for October 4th at St. Aidan’s Church at 7 pm.
PART 2: Even More Fakery – Posted October 1st (a continuation of the above story . . . just when you thought it couldn’t get more dishonest . . . )
The Concerned Citizens for Georgia (aka the Mohrig campaign) circulated flyers to advertise their phony candidate forum. The flyer is attached. The forum organizers have been incompetently trying to fool citizens into believing they are a legitimate and non-partisan group, when they are clearly just an extension of the Mohrig campaign. This is typical duplicity for the Mohrig and raises some potentially actionable ethical and legal issues (that I won’t broach here but may take up with elections authorities). Of course, with my initial investigation, I blew the cover of the organizers and proved the illegitimacy of their CCGa. So CCGa pivoted to a slightly different name in their flyers. CC for GA substituted “for” with “of” . . . they became the Concerned Citizens OF Georgia. The following is from the bottom of the forum flyer in tiny font.
Unfortunately, the slight name change did not work either. There is . . . or more accurately was . . . a Concerned Citizens of Georgia. However, Concerned Citizens of Georgia was administratively dissolved by Georgia’s Secretary of State on September 9th. You really can’t make this stuff up!
CCGa still has a Facebook page (with 14 followers), but the last posting was in March, so there is no mention of CCGa’s phony forum. Furthermore, there are no postings or other information that would indicate that CCGa has ever organized political debates, as the forum organizers asserted. So the second name was also a bust . . . another swing and a miss.
The CCGa did proceed with their phony candidate forum at Saint Aidan’s church. Rick Mohrig signs lined Cogburn Road on the approach to the church . . . a clear sign of the organizers’ partisanship. Interestingly, in the run-up to the debate, Mohrig’s internet trolls tried to pressure Mohrig’s opponent Phil Cranmer into participating in the debate . . . he and Cookerly did not take the bait.
Karen Dubin’s Plan B did not work . . . so onto plan C . . . yet another name change. This time, the phony forum organizers opted for a more radical and corny name change . . . drum roll . . . Concerned Citizens Horse Country. It is just one more transparent but failed attempt to provide a fig leaf of legitimacy for the organizers. However, an internet search provides just one result that provides no information about this political group. (Note: It does seems this CCHC group did organize a debate for the Congressional 6th District in 2022. However, it is unclear who they are and their actual affiliation with organizers of this debate. No information is provided at the one site I was able to find.) Here is a view of the crowd just as the “forum” was breaking up.
Oh, and Karen Dubin, who organized this phony forum under another of her names (Karen Gwyn) has once again changed the name she is using. She is now Karen Zlotnik. She posted the following at Nextdoor. And when she posted this, Ms. Dubin/Gwyn/Zlotnik knew that Ms. Cookerly had already declined (because she was attending her mother-in-law’s memorial service out-of-town) and Mr. Cranmer had not responded. Never let the truth get in the way of a good lie . . . or even a bad, transparent one. Zlotnik’s announcement that Cookerly and Cranmer were attending was just a ruse to goose attendance. It did not work. Attendance was sparse.
This is the deception and secrecy we have come to expect from Mohrig’s political comrades . . . fake names, fake organizations, secret Facebook groups, anonymous publications, etc. It is the same deception and backroom machinations we have witnessed from Mohrig on council.
Citizens, this is just how Mohrig operates. It is 24×7 treachery . . . and as you can see, he and his cronies are not very good at deception. Their dishonesty is only exceeded by their stupidity. It is so easy to expose Mohrig and his comrades that it is not even fun anymore. For 2+ years, they have been caught many times with their dirty hands in Milton’s cookie jar.Mohrig’s campaign mirrors his never-ending misbehavior on council. So far, we have witnessed Mohrig and his using governmental authority to suppress his opponent; meeting secretly with poll workers and then inventing a hacking story to cover up the meeting; using internet trolls to harass and bait his opponent; and orchestrating a phony candidate forum. I believe that with these tactics,Mohrig and his associates might have engaged in actionable ethical and legal violations . . . and this includes the organization and conduct of the phony campaign forums.
As always, I am providing all of my source materials, so readers can judge these matters for themselves. I am confident that you will arrive at my conclusions.
Advocating For Campaign Integrity,
Tim
Note 1: In fairness to Ms. Dubin or Ms. Gwyn (or whatever name she is using this week), in the past, Ms. Dubin has organized what I am told were legitimate candidate forums/debates.
Note 2: I strive not to name or even reference private citizens in my blog posts. This is because I do not want to dissuade average citizens from participating in local politics and governance. However, Dubin is critical to telling the story of Milton’s election fiasco. Furthermore, Dubin is a partisan activist leader. Accordingly, Ms. Dubin is political figure and thus is fair game. The same is true for Lisa Cauley.
Milton Coalition 