As promised, I am providing a web page (without opinion) that is a one-stop shop for campaign and elections information for the 2025 Milton municipal elections. This includes links to various candidate campaign websites, Facebook pages, etc.
Milton’s qualifying period for the 2025 Milton municipal elections ended Friday August 22nd. Three Council seats and the mayorship were contestable. However, only 1 seat will be contested. Challenger Isiah “Ike” Yancy is challenging incumbent Jan Jacobus for District 3/Post 1. Two incumbents, Mayor Peyton Jamison and Juliette Johnson (District 2/Post 1), are running unopposed and will return to council for second terms. Andrea Verhoff opted not to run for re-election to District 1/Post 1 and will be replaced by newcomer Brian Dolan, who is running unopposed.
A hearty thanks to Ike Yancy, who is challenging incumbent Jan Jacobus, for District 3/Post 1. Competitive elections foster much-needed, critical debate about important issues facing the community. (See below note.) Running for council involves a lot of sacrifice. Campaigning is difficult, time-consuming, and costly.
(Photo: Yancy on left; Jacobus on right)
I have no strong impressions of the Yancy-Jacobus race (yet) and am inclined not to get terribly involved (although I might offer some modest and hopefully informative analysis). It is worth noting that I have never had any two-way communications with either Mr. Yancy or Mr. Jacobus. I am familiar with Mr. Jacobus’s record. And I have surveyed Mr. Yancy’s online postings on various government/political topics and have read media reports that cite him. I will keep vigilant and see how the race plays out. I am open to meeting with either candidate and might be willing to allow them to submit a letter to readers pleading their case for election to city council. I wish both candidates the best and may the best candidate win . . . as they usually do in Milton. Stay tuned . . .
Advocating for Good Governance,
Tim
Note: When I first engaged in Milton politics 10 years ago, two election cycles (2013 and 2015) had passed without any competitive races. Voters were so thoroughly dispirited by the middle school antics of Milton’s two long-warring political tribes that no self-respecting citizen was motivated to run for office. However, in 2016-17, citizens finally rebelled against Milton’s arrogant, self-serving political establishment. Beginning with the 2017 elections, Milton has seen 1 or 2 competitive races in each of the past 4 regular elections. Just as important, 4 incumbents (one in each of the past 4 regular elections: 2017 – 23) chose not to run in the face of almost-certain defeat. Such incumbent withdrawals had never previously occurred in Milton. So although these 4 incumbents did not compete in elections, intense debate typical of campaigns did occur in the run-up to qualification that likely persuaded these 4 wayward incumbents not to seek re-election. Moreover, in 2017 and again in 2023, two other long-time incumbents, who would have been wise not to seek re-election, suffered the two worst electoral defeats in Milton history. And despite joining forces in the last election, Milton’s long-warring tribes suffered an ignominious defeat and were finally (and hopefully forever) purged from city council (although a few members—some operating in stealth mode–continue to sow discord). All the credit goes to Milton’s wise and ever-sentient voters. Suffice to say, Milton’s voters have not been shy about throwing the bums out . . . a total of six removals in the past 4 regular election cycles. That’s impressive. (Of course, I am proud of the small role I have played in exposing Milton’s misbehaving politicians.)
Happy Independence Day! Yes, after a hiatus of over a year, I am reactivating the Milton Coalition Blog in the run-up to Milton’s 2025 municipal elections. Minimally, as with the 2021 and 2023 elections, I will post a page that provides useful links (without any commentary) that will allow voters to obtain information on ALL candidates running in the 2025 election for city council and for mayor . . . a one-stop shop for election and candidate information.
I will wait to see how the campaign unfolds to determine how much additional reporting and analysis I provide to blog readers. This is my tenth year of blogging on Milton city politics and government. I am guided my three principles: 1) telling citizens the unvarnished truth, employing only facts and logic, 2) advocating for good governance, especially strict adherence to the rule-of-law, and 3) promoting the prerogatives of citizens (over the priorities of Milton’s ever-lurking special interests). That’s it. It is worth noting that I draw heavily from primary source materials and provide these source materials to my readers (to allow them to draw their own conclusions). I suppose that is why my detractors have never—NOT ONCE—ever written me to dispute anything written at the blog. (Note: My advocacy is self-financed and has cost me over $22,000, not to mention costing me much more in opportunity costs.)
Independence Day is an august occasion for re-activating the blog. Independence Day commemorates the founding of our great nation by the Second Continental Congress. On July 4, 1776, the Declaration of Independence was ratified, providing the vision for the foundling nation, immortalized by the following words:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
Rarely have so few words had such great (and global) impact. While familiar to us now, the ideas expressed were fiercely radical and controversial for the time. In fact, England considered such language to be treasonous, and its advocates to be traitors. With the Declaration’s ratification, our Founders were literally risking their lives. With this revolutionary act, these men of privilege, wealth, and learning risked everything to establish a political system squarely founded on liberty. By “inalienable,” the founders meant that our fundamental civil rights preceded and transcended government, whose purpose is to SECURE (i.e., protect) such rights. Furthermore, the “consent of the governed” means that citizens must frequently and substantively provide their on-going consent . . . consent that involves much more than periodic elections, but includes many other mechanisms to solicit and incorporate the will of citizens. This last point is conveniently lost on–or perhaps intentionally disregarded by—many elected and appointed government officials.
What has any of this discussion to do with local government? Everything. It is in local government that we (should) see the most direct and purest expression of the founders’ intentions. In fact, the founders expected most government to occur at the local (and state) levels, where government is closest to the people. Direct and substantive local engagement was desired and even expected. Accordingly, I was surprised—shocked really—to find so much dysfunction in local government. I found that consent of the governed was quite attenuated in Milton. Rather than being wielded for the benefit of Milton’s citizens, power was wielded against citizens. Our First Amendment rights were not being “secured” by our elected representatives, but rather some elected officials aggressively sought to silence and sideline citizens that dared criticize them and their dirty doings. I was a key target (victim?) of their strategy of citizen suppression. In fact, I am Public Enemy Number One for half a dozen former elected officials. However, their many attempts to silence and sideline me have been spectacularly unsuccessful (and often backfired) and only served to embolden me. They have been sidelined, not me. I was bowed, but never broken.
I have abundantly documented many politicians’ affronts to citizens at this blog. For example, you might recall Council Member Mohrig’s unauthorized investigation (in late 2023) of a citizen, where he trespassed on said citizen’s property and took photos. After citizen uproar, the city reluctantly cited Mohrig for trespass . . . a slap on the wrist, considering the violations of said citizen’s Constitutional rights to due process, to protection against unreasonable search, and to privacy. Mohrig (and former council member Paul Moore) also presided over a thoroughly dishonest election design process that denied Mohrig’s district its own polling place . . . so much for election integrity and equal access to the ballot box. (See Note 1 below.) Those are just two examples; the blog documents dozens more examples of rights infringements by Milton’s former elected officials.
And that, my Milton friends, is why Independence Day is so important. We must be ever vigilant that local governments instituted to secure our rights (as intended by the Constitution) do not instead trespass on those rights. In between elections, citizens must frequently ensure municipal government is garnering our consent through citizens’ substantive engagement in local civic affairs. This includes speaking truth to power and exposing elected miscreants that would seek to suppress our fundamental rights.
Wishing You a Wonderful Independence Day,
Tim
Note 1: Mohrig’s many transgressions were such that I lacked the bandwidth to expose his five campaign finance violations (but may yet do so in a future blog post . . . it depends on how the 2025 campaign plays out.)
The investigation into computer hacking allegations by (former) Council Member Rick Mohrig has concluded. See the above screenshot of the final paragraph from the Milton Police’s 13-page investigative report (Case 23-01634). (RP = reporting person.) Not surprisingly, the Milton Police and GBI determined that “Computer Forgery . . . did not occur.” The report further states that the case will be unfounded. The term unfounded has a specific definition in the law. Following is a screenshot of a Law Insider definition of unfounded:
I urge citizens to request Case 23-01634 from the Milton Police department. Following is a link to the City’s website where you can submit an Open Records Request (ORR). I received the report within 24 hours of submission of my ORR. The records request process is super-easy.
The 13-page investigative report is fascinating reading. The Milton police and GBI were clearly thorough in their investigation. No stone was left unturned. The police report provides a clear, detailed, and unequivocal description/analysis of the events/actions surrounding the alleged hacking that should leave no doubt in citizens’ minds that Mr. Mohrig’s allegations of a Computer Forgery were indeed unfounded. Given the lack of ambiguity in the findings, it would seem this case should be turned over to Milton’s prosecutor to determine whether sufficient evidence exists to charge Mohrig with filing a false police report. Minimally, Mr. Mohrig owes Miltonites a heartfelt apology and restitution of all investigatory costs. I shudder to think of all the hard-earned tax monies wasted on chasing computer phantoms. Milton and Georgia taxpayers should be outraged!
Of course, the hacking scandal was only one of many nails in Mohrig’s political coffin. I have documented Mohrig’s many and egregious transgressions in other blog posts. Even worse than the hacking fiasco was Mohrig’s trampling of one citizen’s basic constitutional rights (for example, protection from unreasonable government search) when Mohrig trespassed on that citizen’s property (yet again circumventing city staff) to conduct an unauthorized investigation (including allegedly taking photographs) of said citizen’s property . . . for which Mohrig was only cited for trespassing. Considering he is a government official, (allegedly) identified himself as such, and (allegedly) stated he was conducting an investigation, it seems Mohrig got off far too lightly. Chalk it up to one set of (lower) standards for government officials and much stricter standards for the rest of us lowly citizens.
Thankfully, citizens overwhelmingly booted Mr. Mohrig from office in the most recent municipal elections. Mohrig eked out only 40% of the vote even with support from a de facto alliance of Milton’s two long-warring factions. That’s right . . . former council members Laura Bentley, Bill Lusk, Julie Bailey, and Matt Kunz all lined up behind Rick Mohrig in his bid for re-election. Politics surely does make strange bedfellows. (See note at bottom of this post.).
I had hoped the city would provide me with the GBI’s hacking investigative report and all the case’s supporting materials (like interview transcripts), but it did not. So I will be submitting another ORR to get these documents. Stay tuned . . .
Advocating For Good Governance,
Tim
Note: In 2011, Kunz trounced Bailey. In 2017, Bentley decimated Lusk. However, facing almost certain defeat in their re-election bids, Kunz and Bentley both wisely chose not to seek re-election to third and second terms, respectively.
Attached is a press release issued by the City of Milton. A suspect has been charged with making terroristic threats against the Mayor of Milton and against Georgia’s governor. The press release provides investigative details that I will not repeat here. This arrest is great news for the Milton community. Perhaps, Miltonites can rest a bit easier; however, danger still exists as I will explain later in my post.
The death threats to the Mayor (and his family) have justifiably elicited more concern among most citizens than any other issue I’ve witnessed in Milton. Milton Coalition Blog traffic set records when I first reported this story. My initial blog post on this story was viewed more than 2200 times. Separately, an email alert sent to 2000+ Milton Coalition petition signers elicited a 71+% open rate and 22% click-through rate, with many other readers reaching the blog through search engines. My blog post was also widely shared on social media.
Unfortunately, it is a near-certainty that others—likely Milton citizens–were involved in these death threats. Milton’s press release correctly states that the charged inmate had no motive to make such threats and was likely working at the behest of others. Additionally, the timing, nature, and other elements of the threats strongly suggest a local mastermind with knowledge of local politics.
I was not surprised about the threats. With support from a few (now-former) council members, a small but very loud group of Counterfeit Conservative Crazies (CCCs) has regularly thrown tantrums at council and ranted incessantly on social media. For many months, partisan rancor has plagued Milton, reaching a fever pitch with the approach of the election. My alarm at this corrosive partisanship prompted me to fire up the blog to stand up to the partisan bullies, who clearly do not reflect broader community sentiment. The exposure of misconduct and incompetence (by me and the Milton Herald) in Milton’s election design and planning dealt a fatal blow to their agenda and doomed their council candidate, Rick Mohrig, to certain defeat at the ballot box. Realizing their demise, the crazies further increased their attacks, which included personally targeting me, the Mayor, and others. In my opinion, the death threats were just a logical extension of these attacks. Milton’s toxic partisanship likely incited one or more unstable Miltonites—perhaps one of the crazies themselves–to direct these death threats.
So were Milton’s crazies perhaps chastened or even remotely concerned by the death threats? Actually, quite the opposite. To my knowledge, none has condemned the threats. Rather than expressing concern for the mayor and his family, some of Milton’s crazies whined about the mayor providing me with the threatening texts he received (so that I might use my media platforms to assist police). One of the crazies even conspiratorially asserted that the death threats were manufactured by myself and the Mayor. Real tin-foil hat stuff!
I have also been disappointed that community activists, such as former council members Laura Bentley and Julie Bailey, have been eerily quiet about the death threats. Both have an obligation (if they are truly community advocates) to unequivocally condemn such threats. Both have been quite vocal in the past 6 months about other issues that I contend are less dangerous to the community and to our fundamental rights. (BTW, both also endorsed Rick Mohrig’s re-election to council.) Sadly, as I have learned, Ms. Bentley and Ms. Bailey’s advocacy is mostly driven by politics and not the best interests of the community. Had these death threats been directed at their allies, I am relatively certain that Bentley-Bailey would be screaming bloody murder. Perhaps, my blog will shame them into action on this issue . . . but I doubt it.
There are almost certainly remaining chapters in this story yet to be told. Kudos to the Milton police (and their state and federal partners) for their fine investigative work. The most difficult task–finding and charging a suspect in the calling/texting–has been successful. It strikes me that connecting the charged inmate to a local handler should be relatively easy . . . a matter of tracing the suspect’s communications with local residents.
I am ending this post with a plea for non-partisanship and political sanity. I have long been involved in Milton politics. Based on this experience, I am confident that a large majority of Miltonites are strongly opposed to the dysfunction that we detest in state, national, and county politics and that we see infecting Milton politics. Voter disdain for such divisiveness was evidenced in the most recent municipal elections when partisan candidates were roundly rejected by voters. Party politics have no place in Milton’s municipal government. Milton’s elections are non-partisan by design; no candidate is identified on ballots by party affiliation. More importantly, partisanship does not translate well at the local level; issues in Milton have typically not broken along party lines. However, definitively rejecting partisanship in Milton is going to require average, normal citizens to stand up to the political crazies—on both the extreme right and the extreme left.
Happy New Year! It is time to celebrate a new era in Milton politics . . . a changing of the guard.
At tomorrow’s (January 3rd) City Council, new council members Doug Hene and Phil Cranmer will be sworn in. Current Council Member Carol Cookerly, who won re-election, will also take her oath of office. Good tidings!
I encourage citizens to attend the January 3rd swearing in. Miltonites need to show strong support for the new and improved City Council and, more importantly, support for a return to plain sanity in City government. It is important to send a strong message that Milton is closing the door on 1) the extreme government dysfunction (led by Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig) of the past two years and 2) the harmful factional politics that have plagued Milton for the past 17 years. Let’s briefly discuss each of these topics.
Milton Government Dysfunction. Over the past two years, Milton’s strategic priorities largely languished because of several serious ethics issues; a focus on HOA minutiae; and an ill-conceived, dishonest, and unfair elections design/planning initiative. Former Council Members Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig were at the center of these controversies that severely undermined citizen trust and damaged Milton’s reputation.
Factional Politics. Mohrig and Moore’s misbehavior was a continuation of 17 years of endless factionalism that has roiled the city since its founding. Milton’s two factions were the Bailey-Bentley-Moore faction and the Lusk-Kunz-Mohrig faction. Often, the fighting between these querulous political cliques was positively middle school—the political equivalent of a school cafeteria food fight. Personality politics dominated, while policy priorities often languished and principles of good governance were roundly ignored.
Fortunately, Milton’s voters were fed up with municipal government dysfunction and corrosive political factionalism. In the recent November elections, voters roundly rejected the politics of yesteryear and Milton’s Old Guard. Miltonites overwhelmingly delivered a clear mandate for change. For the first time since its founding, Milton’s two factions will not be represented on City Council. This coup occurred despite Milton’s two long-warring factions joining forces to support Rick Mohrig and newbie Helen Gordon. Rick Mohrig barely managed to garner 40% of the vote. And with Moore and Mohrig’s departures, Milton’s last political dinosaurs have waddled off the council dais.
This merger of factions was predictable and predicted . . . and is more thoroughly covered in previous blog posts. Once they got past their personal dislike for each other, the Bailey-Bentley-Moore and Lusk-Kunz-Mohrig factions easily put aside their differences. In actuality very little substantive differences exist between them. As I learned the hard way, Milton’s two factions diverge little in their policy positions and certainly employ the same bush-league political tactics (e.g., abuse of various local and state ethics processes).
Milton’s factions correctly calculated they were so weakened that their only chance to retain power was to combine forces. In desperation, Milton’s factions also appealed to naked partisanship, forming an unholy alliance with Milton’s Lunatic Fringe. We have seen the dire consequences of encouraging these fanatics with a troubling coarsening of politics in Milton . . . for example, hyper-partisans disrupting candidate meet-and-greets; Bill Lusk’s shameful marring of Milton’s Veterans’ Day commemoration; and even death threats to the Mayor, which these conspiratorial extremists cavalierly dismiss as a hoax.
Unfortunately, Milton has likely not heard the last from Milton’s political reactionaries. In between the November election and their last council meeting (where they were awarded their participation trophies), Moore and Mohrig engaged in some political maneuvering that seems intended to sow future chaos at council and perhaps provide openings for a return to power. However, their petty parting acts assume that citizens can be duped by thinly veiled traps designed to trip up their successors on council. Fortunately, Milton’s voters are not so easily conned. Presented with cold facts and irrefutable logic, Miltonites have consistently demonstrated their capacity for detecting political BSand firing the rascals. . . a lesson Milton’s Old Guard never learned . . . hence their demise.
Please consider attending January 3rd’s City Council swearing-in of council members. Please encourage friends and neighbors to also attend. Let’s send a clear message of support for the new city council. Let’s voice strong hopes for a brighter future for Milton . . . a Milton free of factionalism and partisanship . . . a Milton where the rule of law is upheld and the focus is on citizens’ highest (i.e., strategic) priorities.
Rick Mohrig and Helen Gordon were soundly routed in Milton’s recent municipal elections. However, you must wonder if their margins of defeat might have been evenlarger if Milton’s election design was not so biased against District 3 voters. Conversely, you must wonder if the margin of defeat might have been smaller if council members Mohrig, Moore, and Jacobus had succeeded in denying District 3 voters a day-of polling place. Consider two statistics:
2 out of 3 of the (17) early voting days when District 3 votes comprised the highest proportion of total votes cast were Saturdays.
District 3 had the lowest proportion of early votes (to total votes) at 46.5% (vs. 63.6% for District 1).
I will return to these statistics later, and hopefully Milton will conduct detailed analysis of the 2023 election statistics as it considers whether Milton should continue to conduct its municipal elections . . . and if so, what changes should be made.
Let me begin by stating that I am a staunch—but more importantly, principled—Conservative. Real Conservatives despise a rigged game . . . unlike counterfeit conservatives. Milton’s counterfeit conservatives regularly rant and rave about election integrity but continue to defend an indefensible election design and planning process that was riddled with dishonesty and lack of transparency . . . with predictable results . . . an unfair election design intended to advantage their counterfeit conservative candidates. Real Conservatives care about maximizing liberty, which means ensuring equal opportunities (and rights) for all citizens . . . most especially equal opportunity at the ballot box. If we err in one direction or another, we should err in providing more opportunity to the least advantaged in society . . . that is compassionate Conservatism. Conversely, counterfeit conservatives are motivated to create and/or perpetuate unequal opportunities for their constituencies with the aim of achieving and/or maintaining unfair advantage . . . for example, biased election designs that favor their candidates. To hell with the less fortunate in our society . . . “let them eat cake” (Marie Antoinette).
Let’s begin with a few reasonable premises. District 3 is where Milton’s least well-off voters live. All of Milton’s apartment housing is located here, along with many/most of Milton’s starter homes. District 3 is the area where two-earner and single-parent families are concentrated: first responders, teachers, nurses, tradespeople, etc. These are families who have the least time to vote . . . and for whom Milton needs to make voting easiest (or equally easy) . . . but for whom Milton has made voting most difficult. These are voters that the let-them-eat-cake Real Housewives of Milton—that regularly rant at council–don’t understand or care about.
These District 3 residents are voters that probably most took advantage of Fulton County’s early voting outside of Milton . . . voting close to their work where they could vote on their lunch hour or on their way to/from work. These are voters who previously also early voted in heavy numbers in Alpharetta, which is convenient (to SE Milton) . . . again on their way to/from work . . . or as a part of their weekend routine. These are voters that most take advantage of Sunday early voting, which Milton eliminated. (Note: When Fulton County ran Milton’s municipal elections, 40% of early voting occurred outside Milton . . . with 75% of the 40% occurring in Alpharetta.)
And let’s be honest. District 3 is where Milton’s Democrats and black & brown voters are concentrated. If the intent was to appeal to voters based on party affiliation, then you certainly want to make it difficult for District 3 voters to vote. And as we know, Mohrig’s campaign was hyper-partisan (although important issues in Milton never break along party lines). Mohrig’s counterfeit conservative canvassers touted Mohrig as “the Republican candidate” and labeled Cranmer as “the Democrat candidate.” Mohrig was promoted at an extremist right-wing media site . . . where he even participated in a video interview. And let’s truthfully talk about racial/ethnic intolerance. Even if the election design intent was not discriminatory, the outcome—reducing the black and brown vote—was clearly discriminatory . . . and therefore the design was inherently discriminatory. This is common-sense logic, except with the counterfeit conservative fringe element
So given those premises, how might one quash the opposition vote concentrated in District 3? Easy . . . make it more difficult for District 3 citizens to vote. By what means?
Eliminate their option to early vote anywhere but in Milton and create a single early voting location that is as inconvenient as possible. And that is exactly what happened. The Milton City Hall early location makes no sense considering Milton’s traffic patterns, which would strongly suggest District 3 as the most convenient early voting location for the largest number of potential voters.
Reduce early voting days/hours. Originally, the election feasibility committee suggested mirroring Fulton County’s days/hours . . . a total of 206 hours it was (incorrectly) calculated. However, early voting days/hours were reduced. Sunday voting was eliminated, and the eventual early voting hours totaled only 149. And of course, it was made confusing by creating inconsistent voting hours that varied from day-to-day and did not mirror Fulton County’s hours that citizens were accustomed to.
Make all the voting locations completely different from Fulton County’s voting locations . . . sow a lot of confusion particularly in District 3’s younger and newer voters that haven’t acclimated to the pattern of different odd- and even-year voting . . . perhaps they’ll give up. Of course, a complex voting scheme makes it difficult for two-earner/single-parent families who have limited time to vote . . . what with picking up the kids from daycare, making dinner at home, etc.
Deny District 3 voters a day-of voting location. Let’s add insult to injury. Why stop at making it most difficult for District 3 voters to early vote? Let’s make day-of voting also most difficult for these voters? And this almost happened, except for a popular revolt from average Milton citizens catalyzed by this blog (and the Milton Herald’s excellent reporting) that caused council to backtrack and add a third polling location in District 3.
In a nutshell, Milton’s election design created a confusing voting maze for District 3 voters. More complexity and more hurdles mean fewer votes. First, cut off the most convenient methods of early voting and then make it as inconvenient to early vote as possible, by sending District 3 voters clear across Milton to an area many have never ventured . . . and create inconsistent, unfamiliar, and reduced early voting days/hours. And then on election day, again deny these District 3 voters a convenient polling place, by again sending them to unfamiliar areas of Milton where they must fight rush-hour traffic before/after work. (Fortunately, this second design element was eliminated due to overwhelming public pressure.)
Milton’s election design begs the question: how many District 3 voters did not vote because Milton made voting more difficult for them? The above statistics provide a clue. District 3 voters voted in higher proportions on Saturdays . . . clearly Sunday voting (and longer/more consistent voting hours) would have meant proportionately more District 3 votes. And District 3’s vs. District 1’s early voting compared to each district’s day-of voting strongly indicates that convenience is a critical factor . . . there was a 17+% difference between these two districts, with early votes respectively comprising only 46.5% of total District 3 votes vs. 63.6% of total District 1 votes.
Fortunately, Milton’s always-sentient voters saw through the unfair election design and voted decidedly against Mohrig and Gordon. And clearly the outcome would have been more lopsided but for Milton’s biased election design. In part, Milton’s election was a referendum on Milton’s election design. Hopefully, Milton’s new city council understands and considers this clarion message from its voters in its future decision-making about elections. We can only hope . . .
Advocating For Equal Voting Opportunity For ALL Citizens,
Tim
Note 1: This analysis was applied to Milton’s three precincts, which roughly correspond to (but do not exactly mirror) Milton’s three Districts.
Note 2: Some design elements discussed above were clearly deliberate; however, others may have been inadvertent . . . chalk it up to incompetence . . . but nevertheless these elements had the effect of reducing District 3 voting and must be analyzed/revised.
Note 3: I had intended to provide a more detailed and comprehensive analysis of the 2023 election. However, given other priorities discussed in my previous post, I won’t be publishing such an analysis anytime soon. 🙂
The purpose of this post is to(eventually)discuss the future direction of the Milton Coalition Blog. But first, thanks to my many readers. I appreciate your trust, confidence, and respect . . . that is what has kept me blogging and advocating for citizens. Thank you!
Because of you, the MC Blog is more successful than ever. I have the most ever email subscribers. Adding a few subscribers here and there over 7+ years translates to a lot of readers. More importantly, the number of non-subscribers coming directly to the blog has spiked . . . more than doubling previous highs set in run-up to the 2017 election. Since July 1st, the MC Blog has received around 14,500 views. If blog post email opens are added, the number of views climbs to nearly 25,000 total views in the past 4+ months. Election day alone saw 624 views of the blog, as voters sought candidate information. This election season, I also sent three emails to my list of petition signers.Open rates and click-through rates were stratospheric . . . in one case, nearly 72% and 22%, respectively. I am humbled by this high level of engagement and trust. Thank you.
Please understand that I also have my detractors . . . and some of them are vicious. They have tried mightily to impugn my credibility and to smear me, but their cheap shots have done no harm but rather steeled my determination. Their middle school name-calling and bush-league tactics have only increased the power of the blog. Each time they mention my blog or my name, blog viewership trends upwards. (I think they have finally realized this, so now just refer to me as TheAlpharetta Blogger.) These detractors often complain that my blog disseminates “disinformation,” “misinformation,” “false narratives,” etc. However, NOT once have they written to me to dispute a single fact, despite multiple invitations to do so. Neither has Council Member Rick Mohrig, who incessantly whines about “lies,” ever reached out. This silence speaks for itself.
My eight-year political journey has often been arduous and sometimes lonely. I have invested over $15,000 and 3,000+ hours in my good governance efforts. I have posted 2 petitions, spoken over 100 times before Milton City Council, and published around 370 blog posts. I supported Laura Bentley’s bid for council in 2017. I believe my support was dispositive in her election. However, once in office, Bentley quickly turned her back on her supporters. We weren’t needed anymore. Bentley betrayed her hardline zoning stances to support the granting of 28 variances at Birmingham Crossroads. Worse, while in office, Bentley employed the same political tactics she had criticized in her 2017 opponent. Belatedly, I realized there was not a dime’s worth of difference between Bentley and her predecessor Bill Lusk. Most troubling, Bentley did not deliver on her campaign commitments—especially her promise to shift power to citizens. Sadly, Laura became just another dissembling politician.
My endorsement of Bentley hurt the Milton Coalition brand and for several years, I was exiled to a sort of political wilderness. However, I continued to engage when I sensed opportunities to regain citizen trust. I stuck to my principles, believing that when citizens were presented with the facts and with logic, they would continue to seek out the blog . . . and my brand would be restored stronger than ever . . . and it has been. And I had confidence that, untethered from ethics and sound advice, Bentley and Moore would ultimately commit self-destruction that I would catalyze by exposing their misdeeds . . . and self-destruct they did and in quite dramatic fashion. Please understand that my goal was not revenge, but rather redemption (for myself). Thankfully, my faith in Miltonites (to see through the thick fog of dishonesty and distraction) was confirmed in your unwavering support and more importantly in your sage voting at election time.
My endorsement of Bentley was my biggest blunder, but also led me to my most important insight about Milton’s politics . . . that huge damage was being done to good governance because of factionalism in Milton. My goal became defeating this factionalism and convincing citizens to leave behind the destructive politics of the past. Since the founding of the city, two factions have been battling each other for supremacy: the Bailey-Bentley-Moore faction and the Lusk-Kunz-Mohrig faction. In truth, these political cliques differ little in their policy positions and neither cares much about principled governance. Often, their disputes were positively juvenile and got so bad at one point that an organizational psychologist was engaged . . . but to no avail. Policy and principles took a back seat to personality politics, with both sides competing to be the coolest kids in city government. Citizens were the losers. However, with the 2023 elections, these fractious factions have finally been exorcised from city government. By the 2023 campaign, Milton’s two political sects found themselves so weakened that they loosely allied to jointly promote Mohrig, enlisting the aid of Milton’s Lunatic Fringe. Nevertheless, they could barely muster 40% of votes for Mohrig . . . a testament not only to their impotence but also to the wisdom of Milton’s voters. Citizens have chosen a new path that leaves behind Milton’s long-damaging sectarian politics and its more recent spasm of hyper-partisanship to focus on a better and less fractious future for Milton. I am pleased about the small role I played in the demise of Milton’s two political factions. Good riddance!
My political journey has also been an intensely personal journey. While sometimes difficult, traveling the political high road has been also enlightening. I have learned a lot about myself and my fellow humans. I have made many lifelong friendships. My political sojourn has increased my self-awareness and made me a better person. My faith in principled leadership has been fortified. I have made some mistakes, but I have no regrets. Mistakes are inevitable. What is important is to admit those mistakes, to learn from them, and to soldier on. That is why I continued my advocacy in the wake of my misjudgments about Bentley (and Moore) and the resulting damage to my reputation and the Milton Coalition brand.
This brings me to my purpose with this post. Although now living in Alpharetta, I had unfinished business in Milton. That business is concluded. I have been instrumental in defeating both of Milton’s long-warring factions. Six of Milton’s factional candidates (Mohrig, Bentley, Lusk, Moore, Thurman, and Kunz) have been defeated outright or wisely chosen not to run in the face of certain defeat. A few other candidates put up by one faction or the other have been defeated. The Lunatic Fringe has been largely neutered. With Moore and Mohrig gone, their venom has no outlet . . . Milton’s radicals have been defanged . . . only their loud, annoying, but harmless, hissing remains.
My work is done. I have achieved the redemption that I sought.Other priorities call. Family, friends, work . . . and my health. A week from now, I undergo open heart surgery. Accordingly, I will focus on recovery and not Milton politics . . . and not the blog. And when I return, I will blog at a much lower volume. And my focus will shift to 1)politicallessons learned and 2) profiling Milton businesses, community service organizations, and difference-making Milton citizens. If I absolutely must re-direct my blog to Milton politics, I will. However, I am confident that Milton’s current council will get back to the business of the people and to Milton’s strategic objectives. I believe that 2023 was likely my last Milton election. I am happy to advise others, including council members, on politics and governance . . . if they seek me out. However, I believe my destiny lies elsewhere and my role in Milton will recede . . . that is my wish . . . we’ll see. My hope is that other ordinary citizens will take up the mantle of good governance.
In closing, thanks again to my many readers. Thanks for your trust, confidence, and respect. It is more appreciated than you realize . . . it has been sustaining.
Advocating (as always) For Clean, Competent, Courageous, and Citizen-centric Government,
Tim
Note: Time permitting before my surgery, I still plan to publish a post “Reflections on Elections.”
(Revised November 9, 2023 to reflect updated vote totals . . . Cranmer and Cookerly did even better than I originally reported, with Cranmer and Cookerly respectively garnering about 1% and 2% more votes than originally reported.)
Yesterday, Miltonites definitively rejected the dishonesty and dysfunction that has plagued Milton city government for the past two years. Both Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly decisively defeated their opponents. Doug Hene, who ran unopposed on a platform of restoring trust and confidence in city government, will join Cranmer and Cookerly on council. Cranmer, Cookerly, and Hene were supported in their candidacies by Mayor Jamison and Council Members Verhoff and Johnson.
Even though Milton’s long-warring factions combined forces, their candidates nevertheless fared poorly in both races, with Mohrig capturing only 40% of the vote and Gordon capturing only 35%. Voters sent a clear message that integrity and accountability matter . . . and that council must focus on citizens’ prerogatives and strategic objectives. With their vote, Miltonites also resoundingly embraced non-partisanship in Milton’s politics.
I have always trusted the wisdom of Milton’s voters and once again those voters rose to the occasion. The election results are provided below. Clearly, these results are a mandate for change in Milton. Congratulations to Cranmer, Cookerly, and Hene . . . and best wishes to Rick Mohrig and Helen Gordon.
Advocating for Good Governance and for ALL Citizens,
Voters, today is Election Day. I strongly recommend voting for Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly.
I have thoroughly vetted all the candidates. Cranmer and Cookerly were the clear winners. Both are committed to ethical and accountable government. Both are committed to strictly enforcing Milton’s zoning ordinances . . . and that includes NEVER voting to extend sewer (as Rick Mohrig has done twice). Both are committed to keeping council focused on strategic issues and not delving into petty HOA issues or other minutiae. Both are committed to honoring council members’ oath to uphold the rule of law. Both are committed to citizen-centric government. Let’s bring back sanity to City Hall. Vote for Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly. It’s not a difficult choice.
Advocating for Good Governance (as always),
Tim
Note: Later today, I will be providing my election analysis and predictions at Bit & Pieces. Click on the following link: Bits & Pieces
Citizens, I know that many of you are coming to the Milton Coalition Blog in advance of voting tomorrow. Thank you for your trust and confidence in me and my blog. Please forward this post or the post URL to friends and neighbors. This election is critical to returning some semblance of sanity to Milton’s city government.
My last two blog posts have focused on alleged recent trespassing by Council Member Rick Mohrig. Following are links to my two blog posts:
Right now, the city seems to be doing what it usually does . . . nothing. Open Records Requests have so far gone unanswered. The city’s lack of response prompted me to write the below letter to Police Chief Austin.
Voters, please read my letter and my previous blog posts and ask yourself the following question. Do I want City Council members coming onto my property and violating my property rights to conduct unauthorized private investigations that violate my basic Constitutional rights, such as protection from unreasonable search (Fourth Amendment), protection from arbitrary or discriminatory governmental actions (Fourteenth Amendment), and right to privacy (established by the Supreme Court in Griswold vs. Connecticut)? If your answer is NO, then vote for Phil Cranmer and Carol Cookerly for Milton City Council.
Milton Coalition 