This blog post is a follow-up to my post published last night. Attached (at the bottom of this post) is the long-form version of last night’s post. The attached pdf provides the full sequence of emails (with contextual commentary) among city council and the city manager. It gives a full accounting of the latest scandal swirling around Council Member Rick Mohrig. It is fascinating reading. It provides deep insight into Rick Mohrig’s character (or lack thereof). Through a series of emails, both Council Member Carol Cookerly and the City Manager Krokoff expose Rick Mohrig’s dissembling and dishonest misbehavior relating to potential misuse of city resources; a “strategic planning” meeting with poll workers; and computer hacking allegations. So far, no evidence of hacking has been found . . . and Mohrig refuses to answer a simple yes/no question (asked 4 times of him) about whether a meeting with poll workers did actually occur. Mohrig has now gone radio-silent.

Advocating for Elections Integrity,

Tim

Note 1:  I want to be clear that my intention is not to malign the poll workers whose home was identified in the meeting invitation.  The fault in this situation falls 100% on Rick Mohrig.

Feeling Mohrig scandal fatigue?  I can’t blame you.  Every week, there are new incidents of wrongdoing by Council Member Rick Mohrig . . . misconduct involving dishonesty, non-transparency, and lack of accountability . . . egregious transgressions that are undermining fundamental trust and confidence in Milton City government.  And with the latest peccadillo, the unscrupulousness in Milton is being taken to new lows.  The political campaign is bringing out the worst in Mohrig.  However, in this blog post, I am going to let others speak . . . namely, Council Member Carol Cookerly and City Manager Steve Krokoff.  I will only provide context sufficient to understand their emails.

On September 5^th, a calendar invitation was sent from Rick Mohrig’s city email account about a September 7^th Mohrig “strategic planning” meeting at the home of two poll workers—one an elections clerk and the other a vote tabulator.  Mohrig is seemingly using city email and a city-provided computer for political purposes—an ethics violation.  However, the bigger problem involves meeting with poll workers.  Considering Mohrig’s past elections interference, one might think he would be more careful about even the appearance of impropriety . . . the optics of meeting with poll workers are clearly awful.  (BTW, the two poll workers have resigned.)  In response to questions about his emailed meeting invitation, Mohrig is claiming the city’s information systems and/or his city computer were hacked.  The City has expended significant resources to investigate both its systems and Mohrig’s city-provided tablet computer . . . and found no evidence whatsoever of hacking.  The obvious and dispositive question that is being asked (directly by Cookerly and more subtly by City Manager Krokoff) is whether the subject meeting actually occurred.  Eleven days have passed since the meeting invitation was issued and Mohrig has yet to answer this simple yes/no question.  (And Mohrig has been cagey in intimating that he might not have known the poll workers were actually poll workers.)  At this point, considering his carefully parsed answers to a simple yes/no question, I can only surmise that Mohrig is worried about self-incrimination.  Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive . . .

After several back-and-forth emails (copying council and the city manager), an exasperated Cookerly—tired of Mohrig’s evasiveness—sends a final withering blast at Mohrig.  Cookerly articulates serious ethical issues better than I ever could, so enough of context.  Following is Cookerly’s email where she decisively trumps Mohrig in his lame game of cat-and-mouse.  Game, set, match . . . Cookerly.

An exasperated City Manager Krokoff also, but more subtly, outmaneuvers Mohrig.  He clearly believes that Mohrig’s story does not hold water.  He refuses to allocate any more resources to what he plainly perceives as a highly suspicious allegation of hacking.  He firmly, but more diplomatically, poses Cookerly’s question to Mohrig about whether the subject meeting occurred, stating that he will not “authorize any further allocation of resources to delve into this issue” unless Mohrig asserts he “has no connection to” the poll workers and Mohrig “did not intend to schedule or attend a meeting as indicated in the meeting invite.”  Following is City Manager Krokoff’s email to Mohrig:

Remember, just a few days earlier, Krokoff admonished Mohrig about circumventing Krokoff and directing city employees (in violation of the City Charter) in what might be “misconstrued as an attempt to use government authority to suppress a political opponent.”  I believe any reasonable citizen would certainly construe Morhig’s use of city resources (email and computer) and authority (directing city staff to pull up campaign signs) as unethical abuse of power.  Following is a link to my blog post about Mohrig’s unethical direction of staff: 
Mohrig Violates City Charter By Directing Staff . . . Using “Governmental Authority To Suppress a Political Opponent” . . . Read City Manager’s Admonition and Advisory Memo to Staff. 

This blog has documented multiple instances of Mohrig’s disrespectful and improper actions toward city staff, including disrespecting and excluding staff members assigned to Milton’s Election Feasibility Committee.  Click following link:  Latest Investigation Shows Mohrig Pushed Aside City Staff and Suppressed Elections Findings . . . Violating Committee Standards . . . To Advance His Propagandistic Election Agenda

Citizens, it is time to restore integrity and just plain sanity to city government.  Mohrig has been allowed to run amuck in our city government for nearly two years . . . with detrimental effects on the city’s strategic priorities (which are being ignored) and damage to the city’s image.  Weekly, there is bad news in the media about Milton’s government . . . and usually Mohrig is at the center of this bad publicity.  It is past time to show Mohrig the door.

(At the bottom of this post, I provide a detailed sequencing, with commentary, of the emails among council members and the City Manager.)

Advocating for Election Integrity,

Tim

Note 1:  I want to be clear that my intention is not to malign the poll workers whose home was identified in the meeting invitation.  The fault in this situation falls 100% on Rick Mohrig.

Note 2: I have never met Council Member Cookerly nor ever had any communications with her on this topic or any other topic (except for emails sent to groups of city council members on their city emails).

Working from the outside, using Open Records Requests (ORR), my visibility into Milton government is sometimes limited.  However, due to my long and deep experience with local government since 2015, I am usually able to connect enough dots to provide readers a good sense of what is happening behind the city government curtain.  However, I assume . . . and readers should also assume . . . that the real situation is usually worse (not better) than can be discerned from the outside, not unlike the tip of the proverbial iceberg.  I assumed this was the case with Milton’s election initiative . . . that it was even more corrupted than it seemed . . . most of the iceberg was below the surface and unseen.  And with each ORR I submit, this is confirmed . . . Milton’s elections story becomes ever more unseemly . . . more of the iceberg is revealed.  Thankfully, we are finally getting a rare insider’s view of Milton’s elections project . . .  and it is coming from the top executive in Milton City government: City Manager Krokoff.  It is not only confirmatory but is actually worse than even I believed.  I suppose Krokoff has become fed up with the “revisionist history” (his words), especially relating to the mistreatment of his staff.  Read on . . .

Based (I suppose) on my investigation into the suppressed draft of the staff’s Election Feasibility Committee (EFC) report, Mayor Jamison inquired about why Council and the public were not presented with staff’s draft EFC report.  (See below email from the mayor to City Manager Krokoff). 

You can refer to my blog post from August 25^th for more details about the withholding of this staff report and the disrespectful marginalization of staff.  Click on the following link: Latest Investigation Shows Mohrig Pushed Aside City Staff and Suppressed Elections Findings . . . Violating Committee Standards . . . To Advance His Propagandistic Election Agenda

City Manager Krokoff’s response is illuminating and exposes an elections initiative more biased, more dishonest, more non-transparent, and more dysfunctional than I was able to discover through my Open Records Requests.  Krokoff’s insider perspective confirms my assertions in earlier blog posts . . . and then some.  Following are the main points from Krokoff’s email response (including direct excerpts in quotes):

• Staff Marginalization/Exclusion.  The partisan committee members—two council members and 2 partisan activists—concluded that “the information provided by staff did not warrant inclusion.”  Krokoff confirms that staff members were criticized, marginalized, and eventually entirely excluded.
• Revisionist History.  The partisan committee members have created a “revisionist history” that is exposed by “simple review of meeting recordings and public comments.”
• Unsuitable/Irregular Committee Composition.  “Early concerns about its composition . . . were ultimately unheeded.”  
• Strong Ideological Bias.  Some EFC members “entered the process with preconceived notions” such that the “endeavor seemed more like a justification exercise than a true feasibility assessment.”  This was evidenced when staff “tried to present factual information but were consistently rebuffed.”  There was a “reluctance to provide an unbiased assessment to city council” due to the “committee’s ideological standpoint.”  For more information about the creation and operations (some secret and undocumented) of the EFC, click on the following July 16^th post link:  Election Interference in Milton (Part 1):  The Election Feasibility Committee . . . Lack of Transparency, Expertise, and Non-Partisanship
• Poor Treatment of Staff.  For staff, participation was “negative” and “distressing and demoralizing.”
• Constant Post-EFC Interference.  After the EFC was disbanded, “A subset of the committee members remained steadfast in their efforts to sway council” such that they “openly challenged our differing recommendations in a harsh manner, as if it was inappropriate to disagree . . . or offer alternatives.”  Refer to my blog post from July 17^th for more details about continued interference from EFC members once the EFC had disbanded:  Election Interference (Part 2):  Backroom Tampering in Hiring and Work of Milton’s Election Consultant
• Excessive Partisan Activist Influence and Overly Compliant Council.  “Strong comments from an outspoken group appeared to resonate with certain Council members” such that they “seemed ready to accept the committee’s findings without hesitation.”
• Tampering in Election Consultant Hiring.  Pressure from Mohrig “escalated” so that he was “insisting that I interview his preferred candidate.”  The “unsettling dialogue at Council meetings” caused “qualified candidates” to withdraw so the Vernetta Nuriddan “emerged as the sole option.”  Due to the “ongoing influence of the committee . . . and disregard for staff research, I opted to involve that candidate.”

The City Manager’s assessment is damning.  I appreciate his candor.  Krokoff is especially credible because he does not really have a dog-in-the-fight.  In fact, his inclinations likely militate against his being so direct and specific in his criticism, as such criticism certainly and uncomfortably puts him in the crosshairs of certain council members and hyper-partisans in Milton.  At this point (with the EFC finally in the rearview mirror and no longer interfering), you could strongly argue he has little to gain from these revelations.  (I do know that Krokoff is protective of his people, and clearly they were treated shabbily by the four partisan EFC members.)

There is a lot going on here.  The summary above encapsulates the many and serious EFC issues.  However, for those readers who want to delve deeper into the elections fiasco, I offer additional insights below that complete some blanks in Krokoff’s comments, clarify certain points, or else provide more detail.  Following is a paragraph-by-paragraph commentary.

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

Krokoff confirms that the partisan staff members—two council members and 2 hyper-partisan activists—concluded that “the information provided by staff did not warrant inclusion.”  Translation:  Certain critical information was withheld from the public and council—for example, an excellent 7-point risk analysis and staff costs in the business case.  Non-inclusion of such essential information (that did not support a partisan narrative) provides proof of the Krokoff’s assertion of bias in the four non-staff committee members.  As revealed later in his email, non-staff members’ rejection of the staff draft was indicative of a long pattern of criticism, marginalization, and disrespect for the city staff committee members.

You can refer to my blog post from August 25^th for more details about the withholding of this staff report and the marginalization of staff.  Click on the following link. Latest Investigation Shows Mohrig Pushed Aside City Staff and Suppressed Elections Findings . . . Violating Committee Standards . . . To Advance His Propagandistic Election Agenda

Krokoff asserts there was “a revisionist history that has pervaded this process.”  He states that one merely needs to review the council meeting recordings and public comments to draw this conclusion.  I have watched all the council meeting videos and agree with Krokoff’s assessment. Pervaded is a strong term that I also agree with.  Both Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore are still pitching a narrative that just doesn’t pass the BS test.  For example, at the last council meeting, Moore again falsely asserted that the elections initiative was purely about cost savings, when the evidence clearly shows the chief drivers were election integrity (and more specifically avenging the alleged stolen 2020 presidential election) and Fulton County’s competence (or lack thereof) in administering elections.

About the committee Krokoff states “early concerns about its composition . . . were ultimately unheeded.” Krokoff is not specific about those concerns.  However, these concerns are several and obvious.  First, the committee was not formed according to Milton’s rules for committee formation, where each council member appoints a member.  Rather, this committee was oddly comprised of 2 staff, 2 appointed members of the community, and 2 council members.  Second, it is odd and (I would contend) unethical for council members to design their own elections.  What is the justification for including any council members on the committee?  No other city committees—past or present—have ever included council members as voting members.  In fact, the City Charter prohibits council members from appointment to committees.  Third, all non-staff members were strongly partisan.  An elections feasibility assessment should have been a non-partisan exercise.  And if not, then it should have been bipartisan, with representation from both sides of the political spectrum.  Fourth, the committee members generally lacked elections expertise/experience; four members had no experience and the other two had limited experience.

Krokoff is (rightfully) highly critical of the partisan bias of the non-staff committee members, mentioning their partiality several times in his email.  He states that some EFC members “entered the process with preconceived notions” such that the “endeavor seemed more like a justification exercise than a true feasibility assessment.”  This was evidenced when staff “tried to present factual information but were consistently rebuffed.”  There was a “reluctance to provide an unbiased assessment to city council” due to the “committee’s ideological standpoint.”  This is a damning (but correct) judgment of the committee’s damn-the-truth-full-speed-ahead approach.  Quite simply, the EFC’s recommendations were a forgone conclusion . . . a case of I’ve-made-up-my-mind-so-don’t-confuse-me-with-the-facts.  Accordingly, the EFC meetings that were public (some were not) were purely political theatre.

For more information about the creation and conduct (some secret and undocumented) of the EFC, click on the following July 16^th post link:  Election Interference in Milton (Part 1):  The Election Feasibility Committee . . . Lack of Transparency, Expertise, and Non-Partisanship

I understand Krokoff’s concerns about potential exorbitant Fulton County costs to administer Milton’s municipal elections, although it should be noted that FuCo’s costs were eventually estimated at $6.93 per registered voter and capped its maximum cost at $7.62 per registered voter. 

Despite the shift to “prudent planning,” it did not “ease the negative experience” of a biased committee that criticized, disrespected and marginalized staff.  However, given “the presence of two City Council members and two highly influential community members,” Krokoff determined he “lacked the necessary support to counter this narrative.”  Citizens, this is exactly WHY the City Charter prohibits council member appointment to committees.

Krokoff references the “committee’s ideological standpoint” in the context of their continued interference in the elections design and planning.  Krokoff believed that after the EFC disbanded, its partisan members would back off and allow staff to continue the committee’s work unhindered.  He was wrong.  After the EFC was disbanded, Krokoff states that “a subset of the committee members remained steadfast in their efforts to sway council” such that they “openly challenged our differing recommendations in a harsh manner, as if it was inappropriate to disagree . . . or offer alternatives.”  Krokoff also references the undue influence of Milton’s extreme right-wing fringe, stating:  “Strong comments from an outspoken group appeared to resonate with certain Council members” who “seemed ready to accept the committee’s findings without hesitation” . . . or, I might add, any reasonable scrutiny.

The interference extends to the hiring of Milton’s election consultant.  Krokoff states that interference “escalated” so that Mohrig was “insisting that I interview his preferred candidate.”  The other “qualified candidates withdrew due to unsettling dialogue at Council meetings,” so that Nuriddan, who did not meet “the minimum qualifications,” became the “sole option.”  Krokoff felt he had no option but to hire Nuriddin . . . especially after Mohrig and Moore effectively vetoed his Krokoff’s proposal to early-hire poll managers and direct them to complete Milton’s election planning and design.

Refer to my blog post from July 17^th for more details about continued interference from EFC members once the EFC has disbanded:  Election Interference (Part 2):  Backroom Tampering in Hiring and Work of Milton’s Election Consultant

Mr. Krokoff’s honest assessment of many (not all) aspects of the EFC confirms an elections design and planning process that was highly dysfunctional.  The results were predictable:  demoralized staff; vastly overestimated costs savings; a flawed and discriminatory election design; intentional omission of any risk assessment; wasted time, resources, and money; reduced and unequal voter access; poorly sourced/substantiated recommendations; lack of transparency; eroding public trust and confidence; unnecessary community acrimony; and constant partisan interference in post-EFC planning.

Advocating to Election Integrity and Voter Rights,

Tim

Note:  Attached (in reverse chronological order) are Mayor Jamison’s initial email inquiry and City Manager Krokoff’s response (in its entirety).  As always, I provide all source materials so you can draw your own conclusions.  I have nothing to hide . . . you be the judge.

The above screen shot is from Milton’s city charter (the municipal equivalent of the US Constitution) and clearly states that city council members should deal with city employees solely through the city manager.  This is Good Governance 101.  However, certain council members feel that they are above the law . . . and often that they are the law.  Rick Mohrig is one such rogue council member who routinely directs staff. 

Recently, Mohrig threw a temper tantrum over alleged irregularities in his election opponent’s placement of campaign signs . . . blowing up the Community Development Director’s phone.  Following is an email from Mohrig to the City Manager and the City Manager’s email response.  City Manager Krokoff does not mince words and blasts Mohrig with his response.  Mr. Krokoff is usually quite diplomatic in his interactions with council (as collectively, council is his boss), but clearly in this situation, Krokoff had more than enough of Mr. Mohrig’s interference with staff.  Krokoff states that this episode is just one of many meddling incidents over the years involving Mohrig.  However, in this case, Mohrig’s meddling could be interpreted as, Krokoff states . . .  “an attempt to use governmental authority to suppress a political opponent.”  In addition to his blunt email, Krokoff sent an equally blunt memo to staff reiterating, in very specific terms, prohibitions against council members interfering in daily city operations.  The memo is attached with the more important parts highlighted in yellow.

Typically, I tease apart and explain the documents that I use to support my blog posts.  However, in this case, the City Manager’s sharp response (and his memo to staff) are concise and explain Mohrig’s misbehavior better than I could ever explain it.  Accordingly, I provide both Mohrig’s initial email and the City Manager’s response (in reverse chronological order).  You be the judge.  Is Mohrig someone who really should be representing citizens interests on council?  Is he committed to ethics?  Is he committed to upholding the law?  Is this any way to treat staff?

As Krokoff states, Mohrig has a long and dismal record of improper interactions with staff—some quite disrespectful and dismissive.  Readers might recall that I recently wrote about how Council Member Mohrig–and the other partisan members of the Election Feasibility Committee (EFC)–shunted aside city staff EFC members.  The four partisan members deleted important details that were contained in an EFC draft report authored by Deputy City Manager Inglis.  This included an essential 1) discussion of election risks and 2) staff costs in the elections business case.  Following is a link to my blog post: 

Latest Investigation Shows Mohrig Pushed Aside City Staff and Suppressed Elections Findings . . . Violating Committee Standards . . . To Advance His Propagandistic Election Agenda

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim

Note:  As always, I am attaching the source materials.  I do this so that you can draw your own conclusions.  Attached are 1) the email exchange between Krokoff and Mohrig and 2) the memo sent by the City Manager to elected officials and city staff.

(Go to Bits & Pieces for more details about how Milton arrived at this troubling state of affairs. Click on the following link: Bits & Pieces)

In the past week, Milton’s Mayor Jamison has received explicit death threats to himself and his family.  Within this post are the text messages and excerpts from the police report, which includes details of a phone call to Jamison.

Law enforcement has been engaged.  An investigation has been initiated.

Before I get to the details, I urge anyone with pertinent information to immediately contact the Milton Police Department.  If you have seen something or have heard something . . . say something.  If in doubt, err on the side of caution and call the Milton police.

The threats began with texts sent to Mayor Jamison on the evening of September 2, 2023.  This occurred on the same day that Mayor Jamison (and former Mayor Lockwood) endorsed Council Member Carol Cookerly for re-election.  That’s no coincidence.  See texts below:

Fast forward to September 6^th.  Less than half an hour before city council’s meeting (again no coincidence), two additional texts were sent to Mayor Jamison.  My assumption is that the texter was attempting to coerce the mayor into not chairing the evening council meeting.  See texts below:

Shortly after receiving the first two texts, Mayor Jamison received a phone call threatening to kill him.  Coincidentally, Police Chief Austin was in the room.  The mayor passed the phone to Chief Austin and the caller again repeated the death threat to Chief Austin.  Following is the excerpt from the police report about the phone call.  (I am including the full redacted police report at the end of this blog post.)

Fast forward (about a half hour) to the start of the city council meeting, with Mayor Jamison presiding.  A third text stating “You fucked up” was sent during the council meeting . . . this was the texter’s answer (I assume) to the mayor proceeding with chairing the Milton City Council meeting.  I would infer that the caller was watching council’s live-streamed meeting (or was attending in person).  The text was sent at 6:01 pm . . . just 1 minute after the council meeting commenced. See text below:

When I googled the two phone numbers used to text/call, half a dozen websites appeared—all with Russian domains.  I dared not click on the websites.  However, clearly the texter/caller has found a way (probably on the Dark Web) to send anonymous texts and to make anonymous phone calls that likely will be difficult to trace.  Following are two examples from my Google searches:

These threats of violence to elected officials are a wake-up call to all rational and law-abiding citizens.  Over the past 2 years, Milton has seen the emergence of unchecked extreme political partisanship . . . the effects of which have steadily and dramatically increased for 2+ years . . . to the point where death threats are now being made.  In late May, I became so alarmed by what I was witnessing in Milton that I began using my blog to warn citizens and the Milton’s city government about the clear-and-present dangers that I perceived. (Go to Bits & Pieces for more details about this story and other local government topics.)

The bitter antidote to this partisan venom is for Milton’s city government, Milton’s politicians, and partisan leaders to finally and unequivocally condemn these threats to our fundamental rights and to our democracy . . . threats that have been escalating unchecked for over 2 years.  This will take courage from the Milton city government, Milton’s politicians, and partisan leaders.  Most importantly, it is time for Miltonites from across the political spectrum to unite in opposition to these threats.  We must return to non-partisanship in Milton’s government and elections.

I urge Milton City Council to screw up their courage and to call a special called council session to approve an unambiguous and strong denunciation of political violence and threats of such violence.  Furthermore, the City should adopt strong measures to mitigate the threat.  Half-measures will not suffice.  Right now, courage is much needed in our city government.

I will continue to provide analysis and comments on this troubling turn of events, including the reactions and responses of Milton’s government and Milton’s political class.  Please return to the blog for updates. You can also go to the Bits & Pieces page for a more detailed account of how Milton arrived at this sad state of affairs.

Advocating Against Political Extremism in Milton,

Tim

Note:  I called the mayor upon hearing about the threats to him and his family.  He graciously provided me with the (redacted) police report and the text messages in hopes that the blog’s readers might be helpful in apprehending the perpetrators(s).

From Mohrig’s campaign website:

The above screen shot is from Council Member Rick Mohrig’s campaign website.  And I don’t want to mince words.  Mohrig’s assertion (in the first sentence) that “In 2016, I was the deciding vote (from my hospital bed, not kidding) to ensure any new lots in Milton are 1 acre+” is a blatant and unequivocal lie.  And the hundreds of citizens that fought this rezoning know he is a LIAR. In fact, just the opposite is true. Mohrig voted initially voted FOR the rezoning he is referencing. Mohrig was the deciding vote FOR the sewer extension and FOR the rezoning to higher density. But for his vote, the rezoning would have been dead. Instead, Mayor Lockwood had to veto the rezoning so that the rezoning had to come again before Council. After the mayor’s veto and because of overwhelming public outcry, Mohrig did eventually reverse his original vote FOR the Ebenezer rezoning. Following is the story with documentation (photos, videos, and excerpts from the Milton Herald).

I was a leader of the opposition to the Ebenezer rezoning to higher density cluster housing enabled by a private packaged community sewer system.  In fact, in opposition to the rezoning, I started the Milton Coalition Blog and posted 2 petitions.  And I can assure you that Rick Mohrig was strongly in favor of the rezoning and voted FOR the rezoning on April 25, 2016.  Following is the excerpt from the Milton Herald about the rezoning.  Notice that only Mayor Joe Lockwood and Council Member Burt Hewitt voted against the rezoning; Mohrig voted FOR the rezoning. And in fact, had Mohrig not voted FOR the rezoning, the rezoning would have failed on a 3-3 vote; a tie results in denial of the measure being voted upon. Because of Mohrig, as you will read further on, this issue was kept in play, resulting in a huge battle that divided the community.

Following is a photo of Mohrig pusillanimously voting for approval of the rezoning.  You can also view a video of his vote.  Use the following link and advance to 6:20:28

The only reason that the issue returned to council was because Joe Lockwood courageously vetoed the ordinance (ostensibly) on procedural grounds (but in reality to give citizens another chance to fight the rezoning).  (This was Lockwood’s second and last veto while he was mayor for 15 years.)  Following is a screenshot from the Milton Herald about the veto and the approval of another rezoning hearing scheduled for June 20, 2016. 

It was at this time that I started a new Milton Coalition blog (to replace a previous single-issue blog), and I posted a second petition that eventually garnered over 1900 signatures.  Click here to go to the petition:  Milton Coalition Petition.  For this second hearing, we brought the full force of the community down on Mohrig.  Many hundreds of people wrote letters against the rezoning.  So many people showed up in opposition that a holding room with a video monitor was established in the City Hall lobby for the many people that showed up and weren’t allowed into council chambers because of capacity limits.  Ninety-nine citizens—the most I’ve seen in my 8 years of involvement in city politics—signed up to speak in opposition.  More than 90% of nearby residents signed a petition against the rezoning.  (Note:  Milton’s Community Development also recommended denial and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to recommend denial.)  So yes, overwhelming citizen (and staff and Planning Commission) opposition coerced Mohrig to reverse himself and vote against the rezoning the second time it came before council.  BTW, Mohrig also lies at his campaign website when he states that he was the deciding vote against the rezoning.  Had he voted again for the rezoning, it still would NOT have passed on a 3-3 vote.  A tie votes results in denial, not approval.  You would think someone who had been on council for over a decade would know that . . . unfortunately, like his reversal, this inconvenient fact about council voting protocols does not fit Mohrig’s heroic narrative about himself. Following is an excerpt from the Milton Herald, confirming that Mohrig “switched” his vote in the second hearing, reversing the “earlier approval.”

So what happened with the Ebenezer property?  At various times, under AG-1 zoning rules, the Sweet Apple developer claimed the property could support 45 to 55 homes (although it was definitively proved that percolation tests for individual septic systems would not support these numbers of homes).  Well, it turns out that the site plan (under AG-1 zoning) for Sweet Apple shows only 34 home sites, compelling evidence that the proposed Sweet Apple cluster-home subdivision would have entailed a 32% to 62% increase in density (vs. AG-1 zoning density).  Imagine such a density increase metastasizing across Milton through similar rezonings and the resulting deleterious effects (e.g., increased traffic congestion; overcrowded schools).  Following is the actual AG-1 Ebenezer build-out plan.  Note that trails and green space (without septic drip lines that had been proposed under the cluster home plan) were incoporated.

Following is a more in-depth blog post that I wrote about the Ebenezer rezoning:

City Council Candidates Have a Lot of Studying To Do . . . Start with the CSO

So NO, Mohrig is NOT a protector of Milton from overdevelopment as he claims.  He is not a protector of Milton’s quality of life.  Quite the opposite.  Mohrig has often lined up with developers against citizens.  In fact, Mohrig voted FOR the very last sewer extension approved by council in Milton, doubling the density over what would have been allowed without sewer.  Following is a link to a blog post I just wrote on Mohrig’s vote FOR sewer extension:  Sewer Creep:  Mohrig Touches Third Rail in Milton Politics and Will Finally Pay the Price in 2023 Elections  Yes, facts are indeed stubborn things.

Mohrig is a serial and audacious liar.  The Ebenezer rezoning is similar to the recent controversy over the District 3 polling location.  Mr. Mohrig adamantly opposed a polling location for his own district (District 3), citing an additional and paltry $4,500 in costs.  Only through overwhelming public pressure and shaming did Mohrig again (like the Ebenezer rezoning) reverse his initial vote AGAINST the District 3 voting location.  (I suppose the Orwellian Mohrig might also try rewriting the elections chapter of Milton’s history.)

Miltonites, we need a District 3 representative that does not have be coerced into doing the RIGHT thing for his constituents . . . a representative that chooses citizens over special interests, like developers and Milton’s lunatic fringe.

Advocating for Truth in Politics,

Tim

Note:  As always, I am providing the source materials for my blog post (in the order in which they appeared in the Milton Herald), so readers can draw their own conclusions:

Council Approves Rezoning and Community Septic on Ebenezer Road

Mayor Lockwood Vetoes Ebenezer Rezoning

Council To Revisit Ebenezer Rezoning

Council Reverses and Denies Ebenezer Rezoning

Uniting the Community with Positive Land Use Solutions – Tim Becker Editorial

Ebenezer Road Saga Ends With No Fanfare . . . Recap of Events Including Mohrig Flip-Flop

Sewer extension is the third rail in Milton politics.  Council Member Rick Mohrig has voted multiple times for sewer extension in Milton.  In 2023, Mohrig will finally pay the price for these votes.  The subject of this post is Mohrig’s most recent vote for sewer extension where Mohrig ignored:

• strong and universal community opposition
• staff’s recommendation against extending sewer,
• the Planning Commission’s unanimous recommendation against sewer extension
• the subject property’s AG-1 designation in Milton’s Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP), which had just been approved in late 2016.  The CLUP committee (composed of 17 members) unanimously denied changing the land use designation (for this property) to higher density zoning.

First, some context . . .

Since Milton’s founding, land use has been the most important and most contentious issue in Milton.  Miltonites love the natural beauty of their city—the horse farms, the trees, the four board fences, the historic barns—and want to preserve and protect it.  One underlying reason for Milton’s beauty is its low density of homes, which has to do with Milton’s sewer system being mostly confined to Crabapple and the Highway 9-Windward-Deerfield area.  Most homes in Milton have septic systems, which require percolation fields.  In Milton, this means homes must be on 1+ acres of land.  Unfortunately, over the years, special interests (i.e. developers) have successfully lobbied for extending sewer in Milton . . . and with sewer comes density . . . and with density comes urban problems, like traffic congestion, increased pollution, and overcrowded schools.  Despite vowing never to extend sewer, quite a few council members have gone back on their word and voted for higher density rezonings that extended sewer.  Rick Mohrig is one of Milton’s notorious promise-breaking, pro-sewer council members.  However, because Mohrig has run unopposed in the last 3 elections, he has escaped accountability . . . until NOW.  For the first time since 2011, a District 3 council race is competitive.  Phil Cranmer is challenging Rick Mohrig.

And yes, Rick Mohrig did explicitly promise never to extend sewer . . . and yes Mohrig did break his promise.  In 2007, in the only competitive race of his career (which he lost) Mohrig answered a series of questions at the (now defunct) Access Milton blog.  (His full response to all the questions is provided at the end of this post).  When asked about his priorities, Mohrig stated “Develop and pass our comprehensive land use map with citizen input to enforce and preserve the low-density, beautiful area we call Milton – 1 acre minimum in residential w/ no sewer extensions.”  See the following screenshot from the Access Milton blog:

However, Mohrig has voted multiple times to extend sewer.  In fact, the very last time that sewer was extended in Milton, Mohrig voted for it, breaking his promise and ignoring the Comprehensive Land Use map he vowed to “enforce.”  That vote is the subject of this blog post.

In early 2017, Fuqua & Associates applied for rezoning of a Hopewell Road property to higher density that included sewer extension.  See the following screenshot from the city council review packet:

This process began with Community Zoning Information and Public Participation meetings.  At these meetings, community opposition was strong and unanimous.  See below screenshot from City Council’s meeting review packet:

The rezoning then proceeded through the review process, including a courtesy review by the Design Review Board (with no vote), city Community Development staff review, and the Planning Commission review.  Again, opposition was unanimous.  Both Community Development and the Planning Commission (in a unanimous 6-0 vote) recommended denial of the rezoning and sewer extension.  See below screenshot from the city council review packet:

Milton’s Community Development included the following in the review packet to city council stating that the rezoning was “inconsistent with the City of Milton’s 2035 Comprehensive Land Use Plan Map for Agricultural, Equestrian, and Estate Residential.”

On May 15, 2017, the rezoning finally came before city council.  Eight citizens (including myself and former council members Laura Bentley and Julie Bailey) spoke in opposition or had their opposition statements read into the record.  By extending sewer, the proposed rezoning doubled the density of the property, cramming 16 homes onto a property that would have only supported 7-8 homes with septic.  The hearing lasted nearly an hour and 45 minutes.  The motion to approve the re-zoning and sewer extension was approved by council, with Mohrig voting for the sewer extension.  Following is a photo of Mohrig meekly raising his hand to approve.

Following is a link to the video of the  rezoning hearing.  The hearing begins at 2:10:50 and the vote occurs around 3:53:35.

City Council Meeting: May 17, 2023

So despite strong and universal community opposition . . . and despite Community Development’s denial recommendation . . . and despite a unanimous Planning Commission denial recommendation . . . and despite being inconsistent with Milton’s land use map that Mohrig promised to uphold . . . and despite his promise never to extend sewer . . . Rick Mohrig voted to approve a rezoning and sewer extension that increased density twice what was allowed.

So my questions are very simple:  Can Rick Mohrig be trusted?  Will Rick Mohrig protect Milton from over-development?  Will Rick Mohrig honor his oath to uphold the law?  Will Rick Mohrig uphold Milton’s land use plan?  The Hopewell Road rezoning demonstrates clearly that the answer to all of these questions is NO.  Rick Mohrig has not and will not keep promises he makes to Milton’s voters.  Period.

Advocating for Trust in Government,

Tim

Following are links to other land-use posts that have been published at the blog. There are more posts that I will eventually add to this list, so please come back.

Variances Are a Four-letter Word in the 2021 District 1 Race

District 1 Candidates Need to Make Honest, Clear, and Specific Land-Use Commitments to Citizens

Variances in Milton (Part 1): Radical Departure From Law and Historical Practice.

What is Milton’s Biggest Industry? . . . and The Threat to Citizens’ Basic Right to Reasonable Enjoyment of Their Property

Milton Voters:

Read the below Paul Moore’s letter blasting Council Member Rick Mohrig about lack of ethics, backroom politics, non-transparency, and operating outside of the rules . . . and about the imperative to vote Mohrig out of office.  I strongly agree on all counts. (This letter was posted by the Moore at a public political blog.)

Two versions of the letter are posted. The first version below redacts some names and other information to give you the full effect of Moore’s scathing criticism of Mohrig.  The entire un-redacted letter is provided at the bottom.

Moore’s letter was written in 2007 when Moore was chairman of the Planning Commission.  The letter was published at the popular (but now defunct) Access Milton blog just one day before the 2007 municipal elections.  At the time Mohrig was running against Alan Tart in the only competitive race of Mohrig’s political career. 

Previously, in 2006, Mohrig slithered onto council without any competition in Milton’s first-ever election.  Based on Mohrig’s conduct while on council (i.e., the sort of stuff Moore mentions in his letter), Alan Tart challenged Mohrig in the 2007 election.  Despite Mohrig running a very dirty campaign (including appeals to partisanship . . . which I believe he will try again in desperation), Mohrig was resoundingly defeated by Tart. Unfortunately, Mohrig returned to council through appointment (when a seat was vacated by Lance Large due to a job relocation) and then ran unopposed in 3 elections.  We’ve now been stuck with Mohrig for over a decade and the lack of accountability at the ballot box shows in his poor performance and unethical conduct . . . and his general disconnectedness from the concerns of average Miltonites.

Why is this email important?  For the past 2+ years, Moore and Mohrig have been joined at the hip and engaging in the same misbehavior that Moore describes in his 2007 letter:  secret Election Feasibility Committee (EFC) meetings; backroom machinations in developing EFC recommendations and in hiring an elections consultant; Moore’s conviction on 3 ethics charges; intrusion into trivial HOA issues; etc.

In the period 2006 to at least 2017, Moore and Mohrig were bitter rivals.  They were members of the two opposing factions that have been battling each other since Milton was founded.  These factions spent more time fighting each other and advancing personal and special interests’ agendas than effecting citizens’ priorities.  Dirty politics were the norm.  Often it was positively middle school . . . silly non-stop drama.  Neither side cared much about the rule of law and both sides promiscuously approved zoning variances.  Regrettably, I was duped into helping the Moore-Bentley faction.  However, I broke with Laura Bentley and Moore, when upon Bentley’s election, I witnessed Moore and Bentley resorting to same misbehavior they accused their rivals of engaging in . . . actually much worse misbehavior.  That was the Old Reality (that Moore, Bentley, Mohrig, and Lisa Cauley longingly pine for).  That was Milton 1.0. 

I find it interesting that Milton’s two long-warring blocs are now aligning with each other.  Politics certainly does make for strange bedfellows, but the Moore-Mohrig snuggle-up is the strangest I’ve ever witnessed in Milton’s political history.  However, it makes sense in the context of power politics.  Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven.  Both of Milton’s ancient factions are so weakened that their mutual survival requires they become kissin’ cousins.  It is a classic case of the enemy-of-my-enemy-is-my-friend.  And in this case, the enemy is (positive) change in Milton . . . a third way forward that forever excludes Milton’s endlessly antagonistic and tiresome factions.  Moore, Mohrig, Bentley, and Cauley are fighting a losing battle against the tides of change.  Just like the real dinosaurs 65 million years, Milton’s political dinosaurs are doomed . . . a meteor of change has struck Milton . . .

. . . Phil Cranmer and Doug Hene offer a clean break with the past (that hopefully the remaining members of council will embrace).  They offer a new generation of forward-thinking leaders with fresh ideas and strong moral compasses.  Both are senior business executives who will bring much needed expertise and experience to council.  Milton desperately needs Principled Leadership in Milton, characterized by respect for the rule of law, integrity, accountability, transparency, process rigor, fairness, courage, and a strategic mindset.  No more wading into trivial HOA issues.  No more shameful ethics problems.  No more elections interference.  No more extensions of sewer.  No more hyper-partisanship.  Now is the time for Milton 2.0.  Citizens, that is the NEW REALITY.  Out with the old, in with the new.  Onward and upward Milton . . .

I love ending this post with the Navy’s Blue Angels and the Air Force’s Thunderbirds . . . a true team of rivals! 

(In subsequent blog post published on Sept. 12th, City Manager Krokoff provides an insider perspective that confirms the findings and conclusions of my investigation into the EFC. You can click this link to read that story: Elections Interference (Part 5):  City Manager’s Insider Perspective Reveals a More Deeply Flawed, Biased, and Dishonest Process Than Milton Coalition Investigation Uncovered)

Yet another Open Records Request reveals dysfunction and dishonesty that has saturated Milton’s election initiative.  For many months, I heard that good work had been done by the two staff members (the Deputy City Manager Inglis and the City Clerk Lowit) assigned to the Election Feasibility Committee (EFC) but this work had been deep-sixed by the four partisan EFC members.  Finally, I decided to obtain the source documents, so I submitted an ORR seeking emails among the 6 members of the EFC for November – December 2022.

In a nutshell, Deputy City Manager Inglis developed a draft EFC report that was rejected by partisan members of the committee, who then pushed staff aside and developed their own report without staff input or consent . . . producing a biased, incomplete, poorly substantiated report that fit their partisan election narrative . . . and in the process, violated the rules for conduct of city committees.  It gets worse . . . the council approval process was then manipulated 1) to minimize council and citizen scrutiny of the EFC’s report and 2) to rush council approval.  So let’s get to the details . . .

On November 23, 2022, Deputy City Manager Inglis sent a final report draft to the other EFC members.  Ms. Inglis’ draft report seems well-written, fact-based, and objective.  It includes an impressive 20-page spreadsheet that detailed and sourced costs. It also includes a risk assessment. However, Council Member Rick Mohrig and perhaps other EFC members did not approve of Ms. Inglis’ draft report.  At this point, Mohrig cut EFC staff members out of the process; suppressed important committee findings that did not fit his propagandistic elections narrative; and tried to short-circuit the council/citizen review and approval process.  On December 1, 2022 Mohrig wrote the following to City Manager Krokoff.

In the yellow-highlighted section, Mohrig clearly excludes staff committee members from further involvement.  Mohrig states that he, Moore, (Lisa) Cauley, and (Mark) Amick are discussing how to move forward.  The remainder of this email and subsequent emails demonstrate that staff committee members were excluded from further involvement.  This is a serious breach of committee rules, which require public meetings where members can discuss and debate their approach and their findings/recommendations and approve (through a vote) what is presented to City Council and to citizens.  Mohrig abuses his power as a council member and clearly overrides/circumvents committee protocols . . . and such power moves are likely one reason why Milton’s City Charter prohibits council members from appointment to committees.

In the green-highlighted and blue-highlighted sections, Mohrig lobbies for a council review and approval process that minimizes scrutiny of the EFC’s work and that fast-tracks approval.  He argues for passing a resolution vs. an ordinance.  An ordinance requires a first presentation, followed by a vote two weeks later.  This two-step process for ordinances is mandated by law and is intended to prevent a law from being introduced and voted upon in a single meeting.  It is a good governance practice meant to ensure sufficient public and legislative due diligence . . . exactly what Mohrig wants to avoid.  With a resolution, Mohrig seems to think he can, in a single meeting, both present the EFC report and get council approval.  This is dirty power politics at its worst. (For reasons I don’t know, Council deferred its vote on the resolution until December 19^th.)

In the red-highlighted section, Mohrig pushes to suppress Inglis’ EFC report.  It is important to understand that council was meeting on December 5 (just 4 days later) to consider the matter of Milton running its municipal elections.  At this point, the EFC report should have been fully vetted and ready for distribution to council and citizens.  It was not ready. However, to keep to schedule, Mohrig circumvents good process, excludes staff, and recklessly plunges ahead.  Clearly, he disagrees with some of the findings and recommendations. However, rather than reconvene the committee to achieve consensus, Mohrig and his confederates reject Inglis’ report, disrespectfully exclude further staff involvement, and manufacture a strongly biased report that doesn’t reflect public and staff input . . . and that excludes/underestimates costs and omits all discussion of risks.

The 4 partisan committee members—Mohrig, Moore, Cauley, and Amick–now assume full control over the final EFC report.  These four committee members use personal email addresses . . .  even though 3 of the 4 have city emails.  This is not allowed but they do it anyway . . . and it means that much of their work probably occurred behind the scenes. Staff’s first draft was substantially changed, yet there are almost no recorded communications among Mohrig, Moore, Cauley, and Amick regarding document changes.  This either indicates 1) the report re-working was done in a backroom or 2) else there was little/no vetting of the report provided to council . . . neither speaks well of the committee’s due diligence.  Clearly EFC staff members had no further input.  Worse, the full committee never formally approves (through a vote) its findings and recommendations ( . . . a gross violation of committee protocols).  This is confirmed in an email from City Manager Krokoff in response to Council Member Jacobus’s request for an advance copy:  “The presentation was being prepared by the two volunteers on the committee and staff hasn’t seen it.”

So the first time that anyone—citizens, staff, or council–sees this important presentation is when Amick and Cauley actually present it to council.  Amick and Cauley only provided their reports to the City after council’s meeting.  Cauley’s business case was later provided (to citizens) in the December 19^th city council packet; however, Amick’s operational presentation was NEVER provided to citizens.  This is NOT the transparency citizens deserve regarding such an important matter.

In comparing Inglis’ draft final report to Cauley and Amick’s presentations, it is clear that substantial changes were made. The final report was not approved by the entire EFC or discussed in a public meeting with opportunities for community input.  After 6 months of committee work and at least 6 public meetings, it seems Moore and Morhig granted Cauley and Amick broad discretion to present whatever they wanted—citizens, staff committee members, and transparency be damned. 

A few deletions from Inglis’ report did catch my eye . . .

First, costs for an elections superintendent were deleted.  In fact, no city staff costs are included in Cauley’s elections business case.  Apparently staff are free.  This is a large, glaring—and it seems intentional—oversight.  It is also evidence of a strong EFC disposition to both ignore and underestimate costs.  Since Cauley’s business case was presented, estimated elections costs have steadily and substantially risen . . . and are now 57% higher than original estimates and still rising . . . and this is without including any city staff costs. 

Second and more troubling, partisan committee members deleted all discussion of risks inherent in Milton running its elections.  Inglis’ report identified 7 distinct risks, including potential voter disenfranchisement.  However, none of this risk discussion is included in the final EFC report.  Apparently, a sober assessment of risks did not fit the hugely hyped partisan narrative being pushed by Mohrig and his confederates.

The development of the EFC’s final report provides yet another example of an EFC that ran amuck and consistently operated far outside the norms and standards for good governance.  From its inception, Milton’s election initiative has been an unmitigated disaster.  It has been thoroughly infused with incompetence, dishonesty, secrecy, partisanship, and unfairness.  The elections initiative is so tainted at this point that the only remedy is to hit the reset button and start over (perhaps leveraging some of the work already completed).

Advocating for Election Integrity and Voting Rights,

Tim

Note: Don’t forget about my Bits & Pieces page where I provide more detail for readers that want to dig deeper into local politics and government. Link: Bits & Pieces

Note: As always, I am providing full access to my source materials so that readers can draw their own conclusions. Following is the link to the response to my ORR. Use PRR-281-2023 and security key 351818 to retrieve the documents. You can find Inglis’ report and spreadsheet; Cauley’s business case; and Amick’s operational recommendations. Bon Appetit . . . https://miltonga.justfoia.com/publicportal/home/track 

On Monday night, City Council saved the best for last.  At the conclusion of city council’s meeting, two items concerning elections were raised.  The first item was the termination of Milton’s elections consultant, Vernetta Nuriddan, with speeches by both Ms. Nuriddan and partisan activist Lisa Cauley . . . both of which were odd in their own ways.  The second item was a speech by Council Member Rick Mohrig from the council dais where he dishonestly and feebly defended the indefensible actions of Milton’s Elections Feasibility Committee (EFC).

Termination of Milton’s Election Consultant (and Hiring of Another Consultant).  Milton’s long and shameful elections saga took another embarrassing turn on Monday night.  City Council’s last agenda item was the termination of Milton’s elections consultant and the hiring of another elections consultant.  The background to this story was provided in my previous post:

Election Interference (Part 3):  Termination of Election Consultant and Hiring of New Consultant . . . City Is Reaping What Moore, Mohrig, and Lunatic Fringe Have Sown

I attended last night’s city council meeting.  And surprise of surprises . . . Ms. Nuriddan showed up to contest her termination; to question the qualifications of her successor; and to (politely) blast the City for its elections planning and preparations.  Apparently, Nuriddan was only made aware (by “neighbors” in Milton) of her termination just hours earlier (at 4:15pm).  (This lack of notification shows a lack of professionalism and courtesy by the City and frankly strikes me as slimy.)  Ms. Nuriddan was cut off when she exceeded the 5-minute time limit for public comment.  I would have enjoyed hearing more; it was juicy stuff.  Nuriddan alleged numerous election irregularities in her comments.  Although terminated for convenience (vs. cause), clearly the city had (perhaps justified) concerns about Ms. Nuriddan’s performance.  I do not think the City has heard the last from Ms. Nuriddan.  Clearly, Ms. Nuriddan is not pleased with the City.  I suspect there will be additional chapters in this election consultant story that will bring further embarrassment to the City and that unfortunately fit into a much bigger picture of elections dishonesty, incompetence, non-transparency, and hyper-partisanship at the City.

Following is a detailed and insightful Milton Herald story by Amber Perry about last night’s contract termination:

Milton Herald: Milton Replaces Elections Consultant

Lisa Cauley, a partisan activist and EFC member, also appeared before council to protest Ms. Nuriddan’s termination and to blast city staff, especially the City Manager, for their handling of this situation.  However, I do not want to waste many pixels on Ms. Cauley.  Suffice to say that Ms. Cauley seems increasingly isolated and marginalized.  She has been demoted to just an ordinary private citizen (like the rest of us).  Cauley’s elections project is falling apart and she is helpless to do anything about it.  Karma! Sweet Karma!

After public comment and without discussion, Nuriddan’s termination was put to a vote and passed unanimously.  Both Moore and Mohrig, who strongly pressured Krokoff and Nuriddan into a consulting contract, uttered not a peep in support of Nuriddan (and Cauley).  (Note:  Fulton County Commissioner Bridget Thorne will also have to answer for her endorsement of Nuriddan.)  Not fully recovered from their humiliating defeat over the addition of a District 3 voting location, Moore and Mohrig were dealt another body blow to their reputations with Ms. Nuriddan’s firing.

Mohrig’s Lame and Untruthful Defense of the EFC’s Clandestine Conduct.  In the wake of Ms. Nurridan’s termination, you would have thought Council Member Rick Mohrig might have been chastened and perhaps slunk out of council chambers with his tail between his legs.  Instead, an unbowed and unhinged Mohrig followed Milton’s last agenda item with an eight-minute prepared statement rationalizing the clandestine workings of the EFC.  Clearly, the Milton Herald and I have struck a nerve with Council Member Mohrig.  I am pleased.  Through mostly self-inflicted injuries, Mohrig is mortally wounded.  Punch-drunk, the bobbing-and-weaving Mohrig is staggering in Milton’s political arena swinging wildly at his opponents.  Last night, Mohrig demonstrated yet again that he is untethered from ethics, citizens’ concerns, and political reality.  From the comfortable safety of the council pulpit, the pusillanimous Mohrig lashed out at his critics.

Mohrig’s main purpose in his comments was to refute my assertions that the EFC operated in secret . . . violating Georgia’s Open Meetings and Open Records Act and other laws governing Milton’s committees.  Mohrig’s main justification for the EFC’s clandestine activities is that Milton’s EFC was initially an “informal” committee and therefore exempt from Milton (and sometimes Georgia) laws governing the formation and operation of committees.  For example, Mr. Mohrig acknowledges that the EFC did meet behind closed doors, kept NO records of its proceedings, published NO public notices, and did NOT provide opportunities for general public participation and observance.  However, Mr. Mohrig’s reason—actually his excuse—for the EFC’s lack of transparency is that “informal” committees are not bound by Georgia’s Open Meeting and Records Act or any other rules for that matter.  Ethics laws?  Legal liability?  Forget about it.  Slap the adjective “informal” on a committee and you can do whatever you want and keep no record of what you did.

The irrefutable rebuttal to Mr. Mohrig’s reasoning (or lack thereof) is there is no such thing as an “informal” committee.  It is entirely fictional.  A figment of Mohrig’s and the City’s imagination, like Big Foot, the Tooth Fairy, and the Loch Ness Monster.  It’s a lie and an insult to the intelligence of Milton’s fine citizens.  Surely, if there was such an entity as an informal committee, there would be some mention of “informal” committees somewhere in Milton’s municipal code.  So I did a search of Milton’s municipal code using the term “informal committee.”  Following is a screen shot of the results:

That’s right . . . there are exactly ZERO mentions of “informal committees” and accordingly no rules for such committees.  Georgia’s Open Meetings Act requires that meetings of every “department, agency, board, bureau, office, commission, authority, or similar body of each such county, city, or other political subdivision of the state” be open to the public. PERIOD. No exceptions, Mr. Mohrig. Furthermore, Georgia’s Assistant Attorney General Jennifer Colangelo stated that the “informal” EFC should have followed guidelines of the Open Meetings Act (source: Milton Herald). Again, “informal” committees are a fiction merely intended by Mr. Mohrig to dupe citizens.

However, it gets worse.  The city does, of course, have rules for convening and operating committees . . . explicit and strict rules that City Council and the EFC should have followed, but did not.  The City engaged in illegality, but has not admitted it.

The rules for committee formation and operation are to be found primarily in two sections of Milton’s municipal code:  1) City Charter:  Section 4.11 – Boards under Article IV and 2) Local Acts:  Division 1 under Article V – Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Authorities contained within Chapter 2- Administration.  Following are links to both sections of the Milton Municipal Code.

Milton City Charter – Boards

Milton Local Acts – Boards, Commissions, Committees, and Authorities

The “informal” EFC violated Milton’s (and some state) laws pertaining to establishing and operating committees.  By my count, the City violated at least eight of its rules for city committees:

1. The date and time of each EFC meeting and the associated EFC’s agendas were NOT publicized as required by both city and state law.  The EFC’s meetings were not even included on the city’s calendar.
2. The EFC’s meetings were NOT open to the public (as required by both city and state law).
3. Minutes of meetings were NOT kept and filed with the city clerk’s office.
4. City council did NOT establish the period of existence, duties, and powers of the EFC.
5. City council did NOT appoint members of the EFC by a majority vote.
6. City council did NOT establish a seven-member board with one member nominated by each member of council and the mayor.
7. City council allowed elected officials to serve on the EFC, which is a violation of the City Charter.
8. EFC members served on the EFC without 1) taking an oath administered by the mayor and 2) executing and filing that oath with the city clerk.

I am attaching files of the relevant sections of the Milton Municipal Code, highlighting the rules violated by the City.  Considering all the malfeasance around Milton’s elections, it is likely that someone will sue Milton.  The City’s multiple and serious irregularities in establishing and running the EFC would certainly figure prominently in such a lawsuit.

In conclusion, as with so many other issues surrounding the 2023 elections (e.g., Mohrig’s exaggerated and recently discredited election savings claims), Rick Mohrig’s lies about “informal” committees demonstrate he is a person of low character and little integrity . . . just another lying, dissembling politician who has no respect for the law or for the citizens he supposedly serves. 

Advocating For Free, Fair, Honest, and Transparent Elections,

Tim Becker

Note: Go to Bits & Pieces to read latest post: Orwellian Mohrig: Too Dangerous For Milton . . . Elections Have Been Moh-rigged. You might have to scroll down the page.