(Updated August 23, 2023 to reflect council’s actions in late 2021 to establish an “informal” elections feasibility committee. However, no vote was taken by council.)

Readers:

Through 7 Open Records Requests (covering the period January 1 to July 2, 2023) I have been able to piece together an astonishing story of Milton’s hiring and engagement of an elections consultant.  And make no mistake about it . . . the basic integrity and fundamental fairness of elections in Milton are under serious threat.

Because I am having to sift through hundreds of pages of emails and texts, my exposure of myriad irregularities in Milton’s election design process is taking more time and effort than I expected.  So I am breaking up my Election Interference blog post into 2 parts.  Part 1 (this post) provides context needed to understand all the mischief entailed in hiring and engagement of Milton’s election consultant explained in Part 2.

This blog post is focused on the work of the Election Feasibility Committee (EFC).  I think you will be shocked by many aspects of the EFC:  its lack of expertise; its extreme partisanship; its secretiveness; etc.  You will have to wait until tomorrow for Part 2, which I believe should result in firings, resignations, and bans on certain activists participating in city government (except as private citizens through the public process).

So here goes . . .

Considering that election integrity was the initial impetus for Milton to investigate running its own municipal elections, it is ironic that Milton’s process for designing and implementing its municipal elections has been permeated by a complete lack of integrity . . . dishonesty, secrecy, exercise of undue influence by partisan interests, etc.  It is a lack of integrity that persists to this very day and should cause reasonable citizens to questions the basic fairness and integrity of Milton’s Fall 2023 municipal elections.

City of Milton Election Feasibility Committee (EFC).  In the uproar after the 2020 presidential elections, which included allegations of corruption and incompetence in Fulton County, some citizens and politicians in North Fulton began to advocate for more local control of elections.  It turns out that state law limits local control, and cities only have the option of running their municipal elections; right now, counties will continue to run county, state, and federal elections and ballot initiatives.  In Milton, municipal elections occur in odd-numbered years.  In 2021, the five sister cities of North Fulton County all began to investigate options to run their municipal elections.  I am told the charge was led by Rick Mohrig in Milton.  I expressed at the time that Milton running its own elections was a really bad idea.  Weren’t there other more important priorities?  In March 2021, the City approved a 5-year strategic plan.  Nowhere in Milton’s strategic plan are elections mentioned . . . not a word.  Unfortunately, elections were unwisely pushed to the top of Milton’s priorities.  In late 2021, a committee was formed composed of 6 individuals:  Council Member Rick Mohrig, Council Member Paul Moore, Lisa Cauley (President of Fulton Republican Women and holder of other Republican leadership positions), Mark Amick (also a Republican activist and one of Trump’s alternate/fake electors, who claims to have witnessed many 1000s of votes wrongly assigned to Biden during a recount while a poll watcher); Assistant City Manager Stacey Inglis; and City Clerk Tammy Lowit.

There were so many problems with this committee that it is hard to know where to start.  First, it is unclear when, why, and how the committee was comprised.  For example, why were incumbent city council members assigned—most especially city council members who would be running for re-election in 2023 and would be designing the very elections in which they would run?  Why were two Republican activists assigned?  Municipal elections are non-partisan.  Nobody even knows (or will admit to) how Mark Amick was appointed to the committee.  (Rick Mohrig appointed Lisa Cauley, so it stands to reason that Paul Moore probably appointed Mark Amick, but he’s not admitted it.)  Did anyone at City Hall know that Amick was a fake elector?  Did anyone check backgrounds?  What election expertise/experience did these people bring?  To my knowledge, only Mark Amick brought any elections experience . . . and just as a poll-watcher.  Given the partisan composition of the committee and its lack of expertise, why would anyone trust the committee’s recommendations?

Citizens, it gets worse.  The EFC followed none of the rules for committee establishment and operations. For many months, according to the Milton Herald, the EFC met in secret—i.e., there were no legal notices and no opportunity for public observance/participation.  Even the Georgia Secretary of State’s office stated it was troubled by the EFC’s lack of transparency.  Through Open Records Requests, the Milton Herald determined that the EFC met secretly at least half a dozen times.  Worse, no records of these proceedings were maintained.  The City waved off criticism by disingenuously asserting that the committee was “informal.”  These are weasel words meant to deceive citizens.  There is not a word or regulation in Milton’s Municipal Code that addresses “informal” committees and how they might function.  It is a totally made-up notion meant to snow citizens.

At one council meeting where the EFC was discussed, then Council Member (now Mayor) Jamison probed and discovered the EFC was not following Georgia’s Open Meetings Laws.  So what happened?  Did City Council take the right and logical action:  apologize, disband the EFC, and push the reset button?  Answer:  NO.  No one on council even expressed any concern about the irregularities; rather Council ratified the existing committee and sent them on their merry way.  No one seemed to have a problem with Council Members designing their own elections.  No one had any issues with the EFC’s partisan make-up.  No one cared about the EFC’s previous lack of transparency.  If any governmental function requires an extraordinarily high level of integrity, transparency, fairness, and rigor . . .  it is the design of elections.  And on all counts, the City of Milton failed miserably.  Milton’s Feasibility Committee was born in secrecy, dishonesty, incompetence and partisanship . . . themes that have persisted throughout the process to the present day . . . with predictable results.

The Milton Herald did a tremendous job identifying (through Open Records Requests) the issues associated with the clandestine Election Feasibility Committee.  Following is a link to a great investigative piece by reporter Amber Perry:

Milton Herald – Questions Swirl Around Elections Feasibility Commitee

Election Feasibility Committee (EFC) Report-Out to Council.  I attended the presentation of the Election Feasibility Committee’s recommendations.  Mark Amick presented the operational recommendations and Lisa Cauley presented the business case.  And I have to say, even by government standards, it was a poor work product.  I suppose it is easy to cut costs when you slash service levels and you ignore and underestimate costs.  For example, the number of polling locations was reduced from 8 to 2. Eventually (after a polling place switch-up) District 3 was denied a polling place . . . the location where it makes most sense to locate a polling place due to traffic patterns in Milton.  (Note: The EFC actually recommended a polling location in District 3 at the Milton Public Safety Center, but council added a District 2 location and rejected the District 3 location.) The City has actually been doing a decent job of tracking the variances to this original business case.  Not surprisingly, the costs are creeping up.  For example, an elections consultant was originally budgeted at $13,000; the City is actually paying $25,000. The City also did not budget for opportunity costs for use of (some) staff and facilities . . . apparently, they’re free in the world of government accounting.  I could go on and on, but won’t belabor my point that the EFC’s recommendations and business case were underwhelming.  I say this as a consultant who has worked with 60+ organizations and has developed many dozens of business cases over my career . . . and even written articles on how to develop business cases.

Tomorrow, I will publish Part 2 of the Election Interference in Milton.  Stay tuned.

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

Tim

Note:  I have prided myself on keeping the Milton Coaltion Blog strictly non-partisan.  In local politics and governance, I have always prioritized principles over party, politics, and partisanship.  This is partly because I believe partisanship does not translate well to the local level.  And in any case, elections in Milton are supposed to be non-partisan.  I will continue to adhere to non-partisanship with my blog posts.  However, because of the partisan sensitivities around elections, I feel compelled to explain my political leanings to demonstrate my independence and objectivity.  I am an independent, Libertarian-leaning, Constitution-loving, patriotic, Ronald Reagan Conservative and proud of it.  However, right is right.  Basic rights and fairness are at stake.  The election issues I am exposing transcend party and politics.  I refuse to stand by and let certain council members and political partisans destroy the fairness and integrity of Milton’s elections.

This is probably my shortest-ever blog post.  Later today, I will publish a blog post that is going to rock the City of Milton to its core.  The blog post’s revelations will be a political bombshell that will send shockwaves throughout the community!  The post will be about Milton’s long-running and on-going process for designing and running its own municipal elections.  If Milton’s behind-the-scenes election mischiefs and mistakes don’t shock you, nothing will. 

Once again, Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore (Team M&M) are at the center of it all.  These two council members remind me of Slim Pickens riding the thermonuclear bomb to the target in the Dr. Strangelove movie . . . in this case, the target being good governance in Milton.  Through 7 Open Records Requests (3 submitted by the Milton Herald and 4 follow-up requests that I submitted), I have been able to piece together an astonishing narrative about Milton’s hiring and engagement of its elections consultant.  After reading about the skullduggery involved, I don’t know how any reasonable citizen could have any confidence in Milton running free, fair, and honest municipal elections. 

Buckle up and stay tuned!  Milton is in for some rough turbulence . . .

Advocating For Free, Fair, and Honest Municipal Elections in Milton,

Tim

Note: The Moore and Mohrig camp are engaged in what might best be described as a False Flag operation meant to distract citizens from the elections story. Team M&M’s surrogates are ranting and raving about a casual political discussion that occurred at the conclusion of a DRB meeting when almost nobody was watching. It is a case of No Harm, No Foul. Their appeal to ethics is laughable and merely highlights their desperation.

Phil Cranmer has announced that he will challenge Council Member Rick Mohrig in the 2023 District 3 race for City Council.  My initial impression is that Cranmer is a fine, upstanding, decent, and accomplished individual. Following are links to Mr. Cranmer’s campaign website, campaign Facebook page, and LinkedIn profile:

Cranmer Campaign Website

Cranmer Campaign FB Page

Cranmer LinkedIn Profile

I am also providing a link to Council Member Mohrig’s LinkedIn page.  I was unable to find an active political website or political FB page for Mr. Mohrig but will post them if/when they become available.  Mohrig recently posted a Campaign Contribution Disclosure Report (CCDR) that indicates (as of the end of June) his campaign has recently neither received nor expended monies and furthermore, that he currently has $0 in his campaign fund.  If Mohrig does run for re-election, it will herald the first competitive election in District 3 since 2011. 

Mohrig LinkedIn Profile

A few weeks ago, Doug Hene announced his run for the District 2 council seat.  Hene and Cranmer’s candidacies are positive for Milton.  Competitive elections will force much needed debate about the important issues facing Milton. 

On paper, both Hene and Cranmer are formidable candidates.  Milton’s 2023 elections may herald the final transition of city government from Milton 1.0 to Milton 2.0.  Out with the old, in with the new.  And make no mistake about it, Milton desperately needs a clean break with its dark political past.   Milton would benefit from new representatives with fresh ideas. 

Let me be direct.  Council Members Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig represent the last rotting vestiges of the old regime . . . political dinosaurs limping along in Milton’s political landscape wreaking havoc as they lumber along.  Both ran in Milton’s first council races in 2006.  Mohrig ran unopposed and slid onto Milton’s inaugural council while Moore lost in a 5-person race (failing to make it to the run-off).  In his only competitive race in his political career, Mohrig lost decisively to Alan Tart in 2007.  However, Mohrig was able to slip back onto council through an appointment in 2013 to complete the term of Lance Large, who moved out of Milton.  Thereafter, Mohrig ran unopposed in 2013, 2015 and 2019 and has now served 10 consecutive years on council. It’s enough.

Moving onto Paul Moore.  Capitalizing on the momentum from Laura Bentley’s historic landslide victory in 2017, Paul Moore won election to council in 2019.  However, Moore served on the Planning Commission since the city’s founding in 2006 and served as an operative in various campaigns since that time and his election in 2019.

I continue to believe that neither Moore nor Mohrig will seek re-election now that they have competitors.  Due largely to the misbehavior of Moore and Mohrig over the past 15+ months, there is a strong anti-incumbent sentiment flowing through the electorate in Milton.  Past elections demonstrate that Miltonites are not shy about showing rascals the door.  The last straw for many voters (and for Mr. Cranmer, I am told) was the denial of a polling location for District 3.  This colossal political blunder put a huge political target on Moore and Mohrig’s backs.  Blame hubris or stupidity . . . probably some of both, in my opinion. I remind readers that Moore and Mohrig 1) led the Election “Feasibility” Committee and 2) supported eliminating a District 3 polling location in favor of a District 2 polling location and then voted against adding back a 3^rd voting location (for District 3), along with Council Members Jan Jacobus and Andrea Verhoff.  The hyper-partisan feasibility committee originally met in secret, keeping little/no records of these meetings.  I have a real problem with current politicians designing elections (behind closed doors and leaving no records) in which they will run . . . who thought this was a good idea?  (Note: Later election feasibility committee meetings were advertised and open to the public, and records were maintained.)

Let me again be direct.  Moore and Mohrig (Team M&M) cannot run on their records.  During the previous 15 months, Team M&M has wreaked havoc in Milton . . . intruding into minor HOA issues, engaging in serious unethical behavior, and designing unfair, nonsensical municipal elections.  And my understanding is that there is more to come regarding Milton’s election design/implementation.  Despite wrapping up their election feasibility work months ago, Moore and Mohrig apparently have continued to intrude (behind the scenes) in Milton’s election design/implementation–specifically the hiring of an elections consultant.  Responses to Open Records Requests (ORRs) submitted by Appen Media show a disturbing pattern of intrusion, particularly by Mr. Mohrig. Additional ORRs are being processed that should shed more light on Milton’s hiring of its elections consultant.

So what does this mean for the 2023 election?  It means Team M&M must distract voters from their sorry records, particularly their ethical misbehavior.  They must find some incident—however insignificant—and blow it out to proportion so they can say “see, my opponent is just as unethical as I am.”  It is the classic Make-A-Mountain-Out-of-a-Molehill strategy.  Such an effort is currently underway regarding Tuesday’s DRB meeting.  Former Council Member Laura Bentley appears to be one of M&M’s surrogates leading the charge on this DRB issue.  I will write more about this DRB issue once I’ve gathered the facts.  So far, my impression is that the DRB incident is much ado about nothing . . . almost entirely political posturing.  It is like equating jaywalking to grand larceny.  It is a strategy that assumes voters are morons and can be easily duped.  Perhaps other places, this might work . . . but not in Milton.  And through this blog, I will strive to assist citizens in applying the principle of proportionality to ethics in Milton.

Lastly, it is my hope that the entrance of two strong insurgent candidates in Districts 2 and 3 might encourage a similarly strong insurgent candidate to run in District 1 and challenge Council Member Carol Cookerly.  A full slate of formidable insurgent candidates would be helpful to all candidates on the slate. 

Following is a link to the City of Milton website where you can find candidates’ financial disclosure statements. These are interesting to see who is contributing, how campaign money is being spent, etc.

Milton Campaign Finance Reports

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim

Today, in a terse one-sentence ruling, the Georgia Court of Appeals summarily dismissed Paul Moore’s appeal of his conviction on 3 serious ethics charges.  (I am attaching the appellate ruling.)  For this appeal, Mr. Moore hired additional high-powered attorneys that specialize in appellate court appeals . . . but to no avail.

In its ruling, the appellate court upheld the Fulton Superior Court’s earlier ruling.  Those of us following the Paul Moore Ethics Scandal were not surprised in the least by the appellate court decision.  Council Member Moore has now been brutally smacked down in 3 judicial venues.  Justice has prevailed.  The unanimous decision of Milton’s 3-attorney ethics panel stands.

I must admit that (even though we were once friends and allies) I feel little sorrow for Mr. Moore. . . for two reasons. 

First, Moore’s conviction was an entirely self-inflicted wound.  I truly believe that Moore had an at least an inkling that his actions were unethical but calculated that no one would have the moxie and money to challenge him . . . he was wrong.  Early on, Moore could have manned up and the damage to him and the city might have been minimized.  He chose otherwise and is now paying the price, as is the City.  Moore’s incomprehensible perpetuation of this sad saga over 14+ months have only made matters worse for him and more importantly for the City.  That gets me to my second point . . .

Second and much more importantly, Mr. Moore has visited tremendous damage upon the City through his selfish and quixotic quest for his distorted notion of justice in the face of hard facts.  Non-stop bad publicity has hurt the city’s image.  This scandal has also diverted scarce monetary resources (e.g., to pay legal expenses) and human resources (e.g., staff time).  Worst of all, this ethics scandal, repeated intrusions into minor White Columns HOA issues, and most recently flaws in municipal election design/implementation have diverted City attention from strategic issues to minutiae, petty HOA quarrels, and hyper-partisan politics (including unreasonably unequal access to polling locations for District 3 voters).

It is unclear (to me) whether Paul Moore has any more avenues of appeal.  Regardless, it seems Moore will likely become the first Council Member to be convicted of ethics violations in the Milton’s 17-year history.  This is an ignominious honor for Mr. Moore and I think a result of Mr. Moore’s hubris in the face of incontrovertible evidence of his guilt.  Given that Mr. Moore seems to have no realistic chance of overturning the latest ruling, now would be a good time for Mr. Moore to engage in some serious soul-searching . . . which I suspect is a foreign notion to him.  Mr. Moore needs to place the priorities of the City ahead of his narrow personal interests.  Quite simply, Mr. Moore should resign from City Council.  Resignation is the only decent, honorable and respectable course of action and offers Mr. Moore an opportunity to preserve at least a shred of dignity in the face of his serious ethical breaches.  I think a sincere resignation would allow Mr. Moore to exit government and politics on a positive—albeit muted—note.

While I believe Mr. Moore should resign, I strongly believe Moore will not resign but rather will resort to increasingly desperate campaign tactics.  Politically, Moore resembles a wounded and cornered animal.  Accordingly, I predict he (or his proxies) will lash out at his political adversaries.  Mr. Moore is up for re-election in the fall of 2023 . . . elections he helped design.  (Think about the ethical issues of self-dealing associated with designing elections in which you will run . . . it is not hard to understand why District 3 was denied a polling location.)  At least on paper, Mr. Moore’s competitor, Doug Hene, seems quite formidable.  I suspect Mr. Moore’s political camp will seek to neutralize the ethics issues by dragging Hene into the mud.  And in fact, rumors are flying that the Moore Camp is seeking to score some cheap political points based on a brief, casual (albeit inappropriate) discussion of politics initiated by the DRB Chairman (not Hene) that occurred at the conclusion of Monday night’s Design Review Board (DRB) meeting.  (Mr. Hene sits on this board.) Based on the little I have heard so far about, it is a tempest in a teapot . . . a big fat nothing-burger.  Stay tuned.  The 2023 political season could get ugly. 

My advice to Mr. Hene is take a deep breath and stick to the high road . . . for now.  It might be best to ignore Mr. Moore and his proxies.  As he has repeatedly demonstrated, Moore is his own worst enemy.  And his vanishingly small band of political proxies will provide little help . . . they have proven themselves clever by half.  Public opinion has turned decidedly against Moore; he will only hurt himself further (if that is possible) if he travels the political low road.  Hene should be careful to not allow himself to be baited and pulled down into the mud.  Hene should focus right now on defining himself, listening to citizens, and painting a positive vision for Milton.

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim

Postscript: Please forward blog emails and blog links to other citizens. The upcoming election is critical to the future direction of Milton. It is important for citizens to understand the backstory of Milton politics, which I have been providing since 2015. The MC blog really provides the only in-depth analysis of Milton government and politics currently available to citizens. I strive to be factual and to base my opinions on careful weighing of the facts. The fact that I was once close allies with Paul Moore and Laura Bentley strongly attests to my independence. I broke with Moore and Bentley when I realized that they had abandoned the core principles that so many of us fought for in 2016 and 2017 and that we expressed in our votes for Bentley in 2017, when she won in an historic landslide victory. Neither Moore nor Bentley has even once written to me to dispute any factual assertion in my blog, which I believe is a testament to my dedication to getting at the truth in Milton. Of course, I always welcome the opportunity to correct any error of fact.

Since it first broke nearly 14 months ago, the Paul Moore Ethics scandal has brought a steady stream of shame to the City of Milton.  Worse, it has distracted valuable government attention and resources away from much more important priorities.  The scandal is like a bad accident . . . you want to look away but cannot seem to turn your head.

The City is making progress on some important issues, but unfortunately the City’s accomplishments are being shrouded by the ethics scandal, but also by 1) council’s obsession with petty White Columns HOA issues and 2) a deeply flawed, unfair, and dishonest election design/implementation process that is making Milton the laughingstock of North Fulton County.  And at the center of all three fiascos are Council Members Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig, who have become Milton’s Frick and Frack of government dysfunction. It is difficult for me to see how Moore and Mohrig can survive challenges in the 2023 election considering their numerous and deep self-inflicted wounds.

I have promised to keep readers current about the ethics scandal.  This includes providing source materials so that you can form your own judgments.  (The Milton Coalition blog is the only place where you can find all these documents and a full compendium of the news stories about the ethics scandal.)

As reported in previous blog posts, Paul Moore lost his appeal in Superior Court.  Following are links to two news stories that provide the details.  The WSB Yahoo link provides the WSB video that was aired on local news.

Appen Media: Ethics Ruling Upheld in Superior Court

WSB Yahoo: Judge Rules Against Paul Moore

Since Mr. Moore’s defeat in Superior Court, a few events have transpired.

First, Moore has submitted an appeal of the Superior Court decision against him.  Mr. Palazzo, the ethics complainant, has submitted a response to Mr. Moore’s appeal.  I am providing copies of both Moore’s appeal and Pallazo’s response.

Second, Mr. Palazzo has filed a motion in Superior Court to recover his legal and other costs.  I am providing a copy of Palazzo’s motion.  The Superior Court ruled that Mr. Palazzo could sue to recover his costs.

My understanding is that within 30 days the appellate court will decide whether it will consider Moore’s appeal.  And it is likely that the Superior Court soon will decide whether Mr. Moore must reimburse Mr. Palazzo for some/all of Mr. Palazzo’s legal costs. 

I will keep readers updated on further developments in the ethics scandal. And don’t forget about the Milton Coalition Bits and Pieces page where I provide additional analysis and commentary for citizens that want to dig deeper into the issues: Bits & Pieces: For A Deeper Understanding

Advocating For Ethics in the City of Milton,

Tim

It delights me to pass along some good news in Milton politics.  (Please forward this email to family, friends, and neighbors.)

Doug Hene (pronounced “Haney”), a longtime resident of Milton, has announced his candidacy for City Council.  Mr. Hene has filed a Declaration of Intent (DOI) to raise and spend money for his campaign.  Hene has also issued a press release.  Should Paul Moore run for re-election, Milton will have a competitive city council race for District 2, Post 2.  This is good news.  Competitive races force discussion and debate about important issues; help to ensure accountability; and theoretically should result in better representation. 

Unfortunately, competitive city council races are relatively rare in Milton.  Since 2009, less than 25% of council seats have been contested.  Since 2009, there have been NO competitive District 3 races.  Furthermore, lack of contested races in Milton is in marked contrast to Milton’s sister cities, where all races in 2021 were competitive.  Milton’s lack of electoral accountability is often evidenced by incompetent and dishonest representation on city council.  It is also evidenced by a lack of integrity and accountability among many City Hall staff.  In the absence of consequences for failure, citizens have witnessed a proliferation of failure—the latest example being a $35M judgment against Milton in the wrongful death of a motorist resulting from the city’s gross negligence in maintaining its roadways.

Following are some useful links about Mr. Hene, including his LinkedIn profile, his campaign website (at this time, only a fund-raising page), and his DOI.  I am also attaching Hene’s candidacy announcement.

Hene LinkedIn Profile

Hene Campaign Website

Hene LinkedIn Profile

Council Member Paul Moore has not yet announced whether he will seek re-election.  However, in fairness to Mr. Moore, I am including links to Moore’s LinkedIn profile; his candidate website (there is nothing there right now); his campaign Facebook page (inactive since 2019); and his latest campaign finance report.  At my Bits and Pieces page ( Milton Coalition Bits and Pieces Page), I provide my prediction about whether Moore will run and my opinion about whether he should run . . . the answers might surprise you. 

Moore LinkedIn Profile

Moore Campaign Website

Moore Campaign Facebook Page

Moore Latest Campaign Finance Report

As I did in 2021, I will eventually create a separate page at the blog that provides candidate information for all council candidates (without any commentary) so that citizens have a one-stop-shop for candidate information useful for making voting decisions.  This will include candidate websites, LinkedIn profiles, newspaper stories, etc.

In 2023, there will be a competitive race in each of Milton’s 3 districts. We can only hope that other candidates will step forward to challenge the incumbent in District 1 (Carol Cookerly) and the incumbent in District 3 (Rick Mohrig). Both have run unopposed in their last 2 elections.

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim

Note: I have never communicated with Doug Hene, but hope to engage him soon to better understand his candidacy. During the 2023 elections, I will offer all candidates for city council, including those running unopposed, an opportunity to engage voters through my blog.

In November 2016, a bright and promising young man was killed on Milton’s roads.  His name was Josh Chang and he was a senior at Yale university.  By all accounts, Josh was a young man who was going to accomplish great things in life.  On Friday, a jury found the City of Milton (93%) liable for Josh’s death because of an obstruction (a massive planter) that the City allowed in its Right of Way.  The City of Milton has been ordered to pay $30+ M to Josh’s family.  This tragic event represents a low point in Milton’s history and should serve as a wakeup call to citizens that all is not well in Milton’s city government.

I will not provide details of the accident or the trial in this post.  You can get the specifics from the following two stories from 11Alive and WSB:

11 Alive Story: Wrongful Death of Josh Chang

WSB: Huge Judgment Against City of Milton in Death of Josh Chang

Josh Chang’s death was tragic.  And unfortunately, Josh’s death was also avoidable.  Chalk it up to incompetence at Milton’s City Hall.  Since 2015, I have been sounding the alarm about serious problems in Milton’s city government.  I have exposed many instances of incompetence, corruption, and pettiness.  This includes the surreptitious redrawing of city council district lines; multiple counts of egregious council member misbehavior; backroom dealings; and favors for friends in zoning matters.  Instead of focusing on important issues, like public safety, Milton’s City Council is focused on minutiae, such as trifling HOA issues, granting favors to friends, and settling political scores.  In fact, City Council recently made it nearly impossible for HOAs to install speed detection signs in their communities.  This decision will surely make Milton’s roads more dangerous . . . worse, this decision was about settling political scores, not good policy.

Mr. Chang paid for Milton’s incompetence with his life.  However, Milton’s citizens will also pay a high price for the City’s incompetence.  The $30+M settlement means the average household in Milton will be on the hook for $2000 each.  The city’s annual budget is only around $38M.  The court’s judgment likely means the city will have to take on debt and taxes will substantially increase.  And the city’s liability insurance—a paltry $2M—will barely help in paying off this heavy liability.  And the judgment against the City begs the question of why the City did not negotiate a lower-cost settlement?

So what response should citizens expect from the City?  I believe the City will provide its typical head-in-the-sand reaction to any negative press:  silence and indifference.  Maybe, they will ramp up their steady stream of look-good/feel-good posts at Facebook.  Afterall, the judgement will be paid with other people’s money . . . your tax dollars.  Do you think anyone at the City will be held responsible?  Will anyone be fired?  Fat chance!  The City will stumble along in the usual fashion . . . fat, dumb, and happy.  Nothing new here folks, move along.   It is important to note that this accident occurred on the watches of current City Manager Krokoff and the city traffic engineer, who has since the accident been promoted to Director of Public Works.  I have long asserted that basic accountability is lacking at City Hall.  City employees who should be fired are rather rewarded with pay raises and promotions.

And of course, Milton’s City Council will do nothing.  Council has completely lost its way.  Over the past year, citizens have seen some of the worst misbehavior ever witnessed in Milton.  Indulged and often supported by fellow council members, Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig have recklessly run amuck in the Milton City government—behavior that has resulted in huge amounts of negative press and public criticism (e.g., from the Georgia First Amendment Foundation).  Paul Moore’s intrusion into petty HOA matters in his subdivision resulted in his conviction on three ethics charges.  Mr. Moore and Mr. Mohrig were also members of a partisan elections committee that met secretly at least half a dozen times (and maintained no records of those meetings).  Moore and Mohrig designed elections in which they will run in 2023 (should they decide to seek re-election), which strikes me as highly unethical.  Their election design raises serious questions about equal polling access for Milton’s District 3 voters.  And in the latest episode of questionable ethics, Mr. Moore is refusing to recuse himself from deliberations on zoning modifications being sought for the NW corner of Birmingham Crossroads, despite his deep involvement in 2018 in influencing the current configuration of the property in question.  The net effect of Mr. Moore and Mr. Mohrig’s actions have been to bring disgrace to the city; to undermine the trust and confidence of citizens; and to distract the City from important priorities.  And other fellow council members, particularly Andrea Verhoff and Jan Jacobus, have been willing accomplices.  Moore and Mohrig’s non-stop nonsense and intrusions divert attention and resources from important issues . . . well, like road safety.

And the issue of road safety (and the Crossroads fundamental look-and-feel) will figure prominently in tonight’s City Council’s meeting.  At that meeting, Council will take up the issue of 4 variances being requested by Curtis Mills, the owner of the NW corner of Birmingham Crossroads.  Previously, Mr. Mills had been granted 12 variances (none of which I believe met Milton’s strict standards for hardship and should have been denied).  And if Mr. Mills gets his way, the intensity of use of his property will be dramatically increased far beyond what I believe is supported by Milton’s zoning laws or is reasonable for the property.  (Interestingly, Mr. Mills and Council Member Paul Moore were members of the Birmingham-Hopewell Alliance that helped develop and negotiate the Crossroads overlay that Mr. Mills is now trying to circumvent.)  Traffic safety is a central issue . . . or should be.  The proposed variances mean many more cars will enter/leave the NW corner, just yards from a future roundabout that cars will enter/exit at much higher speeds (relative to the current 4-way stop).  Can city staff and council really be trusted to understand and objectively analyze the public safety (and other complex) issues involved in this zoning matter?  Will the City once again put public safety at risk and create future financial legal liabilities for its citizens?  Will council honor their oath to uphold local, state, and federal laws or will personal/political considerations drive their decisions?  (See above photo of vehicle that failed to navigate a roundabout in Milton.)

The City’s actions in the case of Josh Chang’s death are not isolated (as they will likely tell you).  In my next blog post, I will explain another situation at Birmingham Crossroads where the City ignored the state’s assertions that certain parking were not permitted, constituted a threat to public safety, and violated state law.  The City did nothing to my knowledge.  I have provided a preview of my next blog post at the Bits and Pieces page at the Milton Coalition Blog:  Milton Coalition Bits & Pieces

Nothing will bring back Josh Chang.  However, the city can honor his memory (and reduce future payouts due to negligence) by acknowledging issues of incompetence and corruption in Milton City Government and fixing them.  Citizens can honor Josh’s memory by demanding accountability that is sadly lacking within the Milton government.  This includes not re-electing wayward politicians such as Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore. Milton deserves better . . . much better.

Advocating For Public Safety and Clean & Competent Government,

Tim

Yet again, the owner of the NW Corner of Birmingham Crossroads, Curtis Mills, is requesting variances from City Council. This is his 3rd time before council requesting variances. In his first two appearances, Mr. Mills was granted 12 variances. I advocated against granting any of these variances and I am advocating against the granting of the 4 variances that Mr. Mills is currently seeking from Council. (Tonight is the first presentation. The actual vote will occur at the next City Council meeting.) If granted, Mr. Mills will have secured 16 variances from Council, which I believe might be an ignominious record high for variances in Milton. In my opinion, the key problem is use intensity. Mr. Mills is seeking higher intensity use than his property can support under existing zoning. Accordingly, he is seeking variances (mostly related to parking) to key provisions of the Birmingham Crossroads overlay. If the variances are granted, the look-and-feel of the NW corner will deviate significantly from the other 3 corners of Birmingham Crossroads; I believe it will look much less attractive. I believe that no one in Milton should be above the law. Mr. Mills needs to be held to the same standards that other developers at the Crossroads have had to follow.

It is important to note that since 2018, at Birmingham Crossroads, Council has approved 28 variances in 4 separate hearings for 3 different properties. I strongly believe that not a single one of these variances was justified. Every variance should have been denied. The time in NOW to say NO to the promiscuous granting of variances in Milton.

Yet again, Paul Moore and ethics figures prominently in this issue. Given Mr. Moore’s previous entanglement with the development of the NW corner, good ethics would suggest that Mr. Moore recuse himself from deliberations and the vote on the variances.

Below is a letter that I sent to Council, the City Attorney, and the City Manager explaining 1) why Paul Moore should recuse himself and 2) why council should deny the variances being sought.

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

Mayor, City Council, City Manager and City Attorney: 

I am writing about the request for 4 variances for the Crossroads NW corner.  In summary, 

• Paul Moore has conflicts of interest that require recusal from the discussion. 
• All 4 variances should be denied by council. 

Moore Recusal 

Council Member Moore should recuse himself from discussion of variances at the NW corner.  I believe Mr. Moore has obvious conflicts of interest.  Minimally, Mr. Moore has perceived conflicts.  And it is essential (to good governance) that elected officials avoid even the appearance of impropriety.  This is especially true for Mr. Moore, who has recently been convicted (unanimously by a panel of 3 attorneys) of 3 ethics violations, which was upheld on appeal.  Mr. Moore also recently, as a member of the “Election Feasibility Committee,” participated in designing elections in which he will presumably run in 2023.  It is important to note that this election feasibility committee met half a dozen times in secret, without keeping any records of the proceedings.  The questionable ethics involved in the committee’s functioning put further pressure on both Mr. Moore and the City to demonstrate Milton is a city that hews to the highest ethical standards. 

I remind council that the current configuration of the crossroads would not have occurred without Paul Moore’s intervention.  It was Mr. Moore that took Mr. Mills to one of the last Matilda’s concerts in Alpharetta, introduced Mills to the operators, and suggested the move to the Crossroads.  This is not hearsay.  Mr. Moore explained his central role in the Matilda’s move over dinner and drinks at my home in Milton in early 2018.  In addition to me and Mr. Moore, 4 others were present and heard Mr. Moore’s story.  Others in Milton were similarly regaled by Mr. Moore with the same story.  At the time, Mr. Moore indicated he would recuse himself from the matter but did not.  Rather, as chairman of the Planning Commission, Mr. Moore presided over a hearing on Matilda’s where the PC approved recommendations that exceeded even what the applicant was seeking.  Mr. Moore drove the PC’s discussion.  Never once did Moore reveal his conflict of interest in this matter.  And later (in a debate during the 2019 election), Mr. Moore would deny his role in the relocation of Matilda’s stating he was merely a customer, not unlike he is a customer of Carl Black or Publix.

However, my understanding is that in the wake of Mr. Mills being granted a “festival” special use permit and 9 variances (and 3 more variances later in 2018), Mr. Moore was given the stage at 1+ Matilda’s concerts for campaigning.  See the following photo sent to me by a concerned citizen.

Mr. Moore and Mr. Mills have long enjoyed a relationship that might be interpreted by some (I am one of them) that might influence Moore to advocate for special treatment that might militate against the interests of the community.  I strongly believe Mr. Moore cannot and will not be objective in this matter.  I’ll let you draw your own conclusions . . . 

If Mr. Moore does not voluntarily recuse himself, I believe the City Manager, City Attorney, and City Council have an obligation to discuss this issue and articulate a clear position on the ethics of Mr. Moore’s participation in tonight’s discussion and vote about the NW corner.  And I warn council that ignoring this issue or allowing Mr. Moore to participate might result in further ethics complaints and all that entails in terms of legal costs, bad publicity, diversion from important priorities, wasted resources, etc. 

Variance Denial 

I recommend denial of all variances being requested.   

Most current council members were not involved in the decision (June 2018) to allow Mr. Mills to bastardize a festival use permit with 9 variances.  I doubt any of these newer council members understand the background involved in this matter.  And an understanding of this background is necessary to making decisions tonight that will benefit the citizens and the community. 

I remind Council that Mr. Mills has already been granted 12 variances for his property.  He was initially granted 9 variances used to bastardize Milton’s festival use permit to locate a concert venue at the Crossroads.  He later built a (second) parking lot under the power lines that was neither authorized by Georgia Power (which owns the easement and must approve such uses) nor the City.  This required Mr. Mills to seek 3 more variances, which were granted without a word of scolding from Council.   

Now, Mr. Mills is seeking 4 more variances for a total of 16 variances for his Crossroads property.  I remind Council that Milton has a very stringent variance ordinance that requires variances satisfy the criteria of each of 4 tests.  The applicant must demonstrate hardship, as defined in the context of zoning.  No reasonable case for hardship can be made.

Let me get to the crux of the matter.  Mr. Mills was granted some variances for the purpose of parking for Matilda’s.  A parking lot is not a permitted AG1 use, but an exception was made for Matilda’s.  Mr. Mills has mostly used this Matilda’s parking for his restaurant.  To date, despite protests from citizens, the City has turned a blind eye to Mr. Mills re-purposing Matilda’s parking for his restaurant.  Now, Mr. Mills wants to increase the commercial capacity of his commercially-zoned property, which is his right.  However, it seems he wants to shift some/most of the parking from the commercially zoned property to the Matilda’s parking lot.  Furthermore, he seeks to construct the parking in a design that does not follow the master plan/overlay for the Crossroads and therefore violates the look-and-feel that was approved for the Crossroads and which developers of the other 3 corners were forced to follow.  It is fine for Mr. Mills to seek to commercialize his property and to maximize the return on his investment in his property.  However, he needs to do so within the constraints imposed by the Birmingham Crossroads overlay.  If parking is insufficient, then Mr. Mills needs to reduce the property’s intensity of use such that parking is adequate (and follows the Crossroads overlay) for the intensity of use within the commercial boundaries of the property and does not spill onto AG1 land.  The City has been generous—overly generous, in my opinion—in granting Mr. Mills variances.  Furthermore, to my knowledge, Mr. Mills has not provided the City anything of value in exchange for granted variances, which have enhanced the value of his property.  Such “horse-trading” of variances for concessions is standard practice in other locales, but not in Milton. 

In closing, it is important to note that both Mr. Mills and Mr. Moore were members of the Birmingham-Hopewell Alliance, which was instrumental in negotiating the current master plan for Birmingham Crossroads.  At the time, neither Moore nor Mills had any interest—financial or otherwise—in the NW corner.  However, both Moore and Mills now have personal/financial interests in the NW corner.  This has resulted in their advocacy of variances that fundamentally undermine the master plan/overlay that both Moore and Mills helped to develop and promote.  I trust the irony of this advocacy is not lost on you or, more importantly, the community. 

Advocating for Good Governance, 

Tim Becker 

For me as a veteran, Memorial Day takes on special significance.  I served nearly 8 years (1983-1990) as a nuclear submarine officer in the US Navy.  I am ever thankful for the honor and privilege of serving our great nation and giving back to a country that has given so much to me.  Memorial Day presents an opportunity for citizens to honor the memory of soldiers who made the ultimate sacrifice for our country.  Unlike Veterans Day, which honors all veterans, Memorial Day venerates only those veterans that died while actively serving our nation—the vast majority of whom died in battle or from battle-incurred wounds.

So what exactly did these military men and women die protecting?  Answer: our fallen veterans died protecting our central liberties such as the right to free speech, (equal) voting rights, and even the right for private individuals/entities to enter into contracts (without excessive regulation).  These fundamental freedoms are foundational to the success of our great nation; they enable and catalyze the social and economic dynamism that is essential to our nation’s so many triumphs in science, business, medicine, etc.  Unfortunately, these fundamental freedoms are always under assault.  And these threats to liberty are not only external but also internal and even local.  Right here in Milton, some council members and their partisan proxies have fought hard to undermine Miltonites’ basic rights. In my advocacy on behalf of citizens, I have experienced firsthand their attempts—mostly unsuccessful—to limit my freedom of speech and protest or otherwise marginalize me.  I have paid a heavy price for my advocacy, including significant expenditures on attorneys.

The internal threats to our liberty come from both the extreme left and the extreme right, which employ similar undemocratic and unethical tactics to advance their agendas.  When I first got involved in city politics in 2015, a handful of far-left activists had gained a foothold in Milton’s city government.  Under the guise of (faux) environmentalism, these activists and their agents on city council (including Rick Mohrig) were promoting cluster housing in areas of Milton zoned AG-1 (which requires houses be built on 1+ acres).  A strong citizens’ movement (that I helped to lead) successfully fended off these existential threats to Milton’s rural heritage and identity.

Unlike 2015, the current local threat to our liberties comes from the far right and is being led by Council Members Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig and partisan activists. For more than a year, Moore and Mohrig have run amuck in our city government, trampling on the rights of citizens (they have pledged to serve) and disregarding their oath (of office) to uphold the rule of law.  Moore and Mohrig have intervened in petty HOA matters; they have threatened the First Amendment rights of protest and free speech through bullying and expensive litigation; and they have most recently succeeded in making voting more difficult for certain citizen in Milton (those living in District 3).  Such flagrant and callous affronts to basic political rights dishonor and disrespect the many hundreds of thousands of veterans that have sacrificed their lives for sacred American principles.

This Memorial Day, I urge citizens to take a few minutes to reflect on the principles that our military men and women sacrificed their lives to uphold.  I urge citizens to find ways to engage in local government to ensure these foundational principles are upheld and celebrated.  I urge citizens to resist efforts by local politicians (and their proxies) to undermine citizens’ fundamental rights to speak, to protest, to vote, and to pursue their own idea of happiness (without excessive government meddling).

Remembering and Honoring Our Many Military Members On Eternal Duty,

Tim

(Updated October 13, 2023. I have updated some information in the original post and annotated those changes. The situation is actually worse than I originally described.)

On May 12^th Stacey Abram’s Fair Fight and other progressive activist groups sent a letter to Milton’s City Council, protesting the city’s rejection of a third election-day polling location in Milton’s District 3, which is Milton’s most populous district–encompassing the Windward/Deerfield/Highway 9 area.  Districts 1 and 2 were allocated day-of polling locations, but not District 3.  I am attaching Fair Fight’s letter at the bottom of this blog post.

Yes, Ms. Abrams is targeting Milton.  And I want to be very clear that Council Members Moore and Mohrig (and political activists Lisa Cauley and Mark Amick ) are responsible for unnecessarily placing a ginormous political target on Milton’s back.  These 4 Miltonites (along with 2 city staff) composed Milton’s Election Feasibility Committee that 1) recommended that Milton run its own municipal elections and 2) provided a high-level municipal election design.  Mohrig, Moore and their small partisan mob (that regularly show up at council) are now insisting that Milton blindly implement every element of their design—no matter how nonsensical or unfair. (August 9th update. In actuality, these partisans have been hypocritical in what they insist should be blindly implemented. Read on . . . )

Two elements of this design were 1) early day voting locations (only one at Milton City Hall) and 2) two election day voting locations.  Milton is divided into 3 districts.  However, only 2 election day polling places were designated (this is down from 8 under Fulton County):  one in District 1 (Milton City Hall) and one in District 2 (the old Milton Country Club).  No polling location was designated in District 3.  (August 9th update: Actually, District 3 was recommended as a polling location by the EFC, but that got changed to District 2 . . . Moore and Mohrig were ok with this EFC recommendation being changed. In fact, Moore justified taking away the District 3 polling location by citing low voter participation.) Odd, right?  The reason should be intuitively obvious to even the most casual observer.  Nevertheless, let me explain . . .

District 3 has the highest concentration of Democrat voters.  Denying District 3 a polling location is “too coincidental to be a coincidence” (to quote Yogi Berra).  Interestingly, District 3 is actually the most logical location for both early and election day polling stations.  Traffic in Milton tends to move from north and west to south and east, as Miltonites commute to work, drop off children at school, travel to shopping/dining/etc.  This means many voters have ample reason to pass through District 3 on any given day; the same cannot be said of Milton’s 2 other districts.  In fact, I suspect many District 3 residents have never ventured to Crabapple or Birmingham Crossroads. 

Furthermore, 30% of Milton’s early votes historically have been cast at the Alpharetta Library.  Given the proximity of District 3 to the Alpharetta Library, it can be convincingly argued that most of these votes come from District 3.  So not only have District 3 voters been denied a convenient polling location on election day, they (along with non-Crabapple area voters) have also been denied a convenient early-voting location in Alpharetta.  Thus District 3 voters have been twice disadvantaged by Milton’s election design.  Note that 10% of early votes have historically been cast outside Milton and Alpharetta, which will no longer be a voting option for Miltonites. (August 9th update: It gets even worse. The EFC recommended that Milton’s early voting days/hours “mirror” Fulton County’s 2021 early voting days/hours. Voting days/hours differ significantly from FuCo’s 2021 days/hours. And the EFC’s recommendation of 206 early voting hours has been reduced to 149 hours! And not a peep from Mohrig and Moore about these changes to the EFC’s design.)

And let’s be honest.  District 3 is comprised of less expensive housing, including all of Milton’s apartment complexes.  District 3 is where Miltonites of more modest means live . . . Milton’s police officers, fire fighters, teachers, restaurant/retail workers, tradespeople, etc.  You will also find there more families where both spouses work or that are headed by a single parent . . . families with limited time and resources.  In short, these are the voters for whom we need to make voting easiest, but for whom Milton is making voting most difficult.  And that is WRONG.  Only basic common sense need be applied to understand that Milton’s current election scheme was designed to dampen voting in District 3.  Interestingly, both District 3 Council Members—Rick Mohrig and Jan Jacobus—support the current scheme . . . as does Andrea Verhoff, who was voted into office by a coalition of Democrats and more sober and level-headed Republicans.

Furthermore, Mohrig et al’s assertion that 2 locations are needed to minimize costs doesn’t hold water.  If costs are a driver, then I would suggest replacing the District 2 polling location (the former Milton Country Club), which is furthest from Milton’s population centers, with a District 3 polling location.  Given traffic patterns in Milton, a District 3 location would also best serve as Milton’s early voting location.  If we care about costs, don’t we want to get the most bang for our buck (votes per $ spent on the election) . . . the maximum number of (legitimate) votes for our election budget?  Again, this seems to be plain common sense, except to Moore and Mohrig.  The current election scheme only makes sense in the context of partisan politics.

Some extreme-right political partisans are trying to shift the blame (away from Moore and Mohrig) to Mayor Jamison for Ms. Abrams letter to council.  And at last Monday night’s council meeting, these partisans unleashed their hounds.  The Mayor was called “woke” and “Marxist.”  However, a reaction to Milton’s election design from the left was inevitable, so this orchestrated attack from the ultra-right on the mayor was mostly political posturing/positioning.  The truth is that Mayor Jamison foresaw the coming storm and did his best to remove the target from Milton’s back, but to no avail.  Although a Republican and political conservative, Jamison understands that partisanship, particularly in the design of elections, is unprincipled and, more importantly, a distraction from accomplishment of Milton’s highest priorities (like over-development) which are decidedly non-partisan.  Milton is best served by non-partisanship.

I am not a fan of Ms. Abrams.  Our country is not well-served by an “open borders” approach to voting.  The integrity of elections is important.  Ballot harvesting is a troubling issue that should be addressed.  Sensible voter identification laws are the norm in western democracies.  On the other hand, our country needs to minimize obvious hurdles to voting.  Ms. Abrams took the wrong approach in her letter.  Unfortunately, Ms. Abrams played the race card, which was wrong, unnecessary, and ultimately counter-productive.  Such reflexive and ill-conceived appeals based on race only serve to rile the hard-right and tamp down rational debate.  The intent (i.e., the cause) in Milton’s election design was to diminish the Democrat vote, not to explicitly suppress black/brown voters.  However, given that a disproportionate number of black/brown voters reside in District 3 and are Democrats, the net effect of Milton’s election design will make voting more difficult for most black and brown voters in Milton and therefore the current election scheme is discriminatory.

The Milton Herald has done a great job covering the evolving story of local elections in Milton and North Fulton.  Following is a link to the Milton Herald‘s webpage on municipal elections.

Milton Herald: Municipal Elections Web Page

A sentient reader might be asking how we got to this sorry state of affairs?  And you hopefully are asking the obvious question:  Why are council members designing elections in which they will be running?  (Both Moore and Mohrig are up for re-election in 2023).  Unethical, huh?  Suffice to say that Milton’s design of its elections is a story of dishonesty, incompetence, and vitriolic partisanship.  It is a story that should convince citizens to flock to the ballot box to turn Moore and Mohrig out of office. 

Advocating for Free and Fair Elections,

Tim

Note:  My blog is non-partisan and will remain so.  Partisanship does not translate well at the local level in Milton.  Milton is best served by non-partisanship in spirit and in deed. The infection of local politics with partisan plague will only serve to harm Milton and tear the community asunder.