Tag: democracy

Uncategorized

Milton Coalition Blog’s 10th Anniversary:  A Big Thank You to Milton’s Citizens

Posted on by Milton Coalition

May 2026 marks the Milton Coalition Blog’s 10th anniversary.  This auspicious milestone seems a fitting occasion to reflect on the past 10 years and to discuss the blog’s future.  However, before I begin, I am obliged to express my heartfelt appreciation to my readers—Milton’s citizens–for your support and your friendship, which have sustained me.  Thank you.  My blog’s steady North Star has always been the best interests of Milton’s citizens.   Period.

When I first launched the Milton Coalition Blog, my hypothesis—really just a hunch–was that in a constitutional republic, facts and logic—even when wielded by ordinary, lowly citizens such as myself and readers of this blog—would prevail over darker forces ever lurking in politics and government.  I further surmised that dependably keeping to the high road would be the best route to defeating self-serving, dishonest politicians and their affiliated Special Interests that were clogging Milton’s low road.  However, I realized that facts and logic would not be insufficient; adherence to high ethical standards would not suffice.  Rather, it was necessary to reach and organize citizens; catalyzing citizen engagement was essential to effecting lasting change.  This required a direct communications channel to citizens . . . the Milton Coalition Blog.

The Milton Coalition Blog has been successful beyond my wildest expectations.  The numbers (totals for the past 10 years) speak for themselves (See Note 1).

  • 90,000+ views of blog posts/pages achieved through 1) direct blog visits (48,625 views) and 2) emails to blog subscribers (42,000+ views, including forwards to other citizens . . . dramatically increasing the blog’s reach).
  • 19,780 direct visitors to the blog
  • 799 blog shares on social media platforms (e.g., Facebook, Instagram), steering 2,452 visitors (or 12% of total visitors) to the blog.
  • 3,148 click-throughs from the blog to external websites (e.g., Appen Media, Milton Coalition petitions, candidate websites)
  • 2,924 video views.
  • 2,822 signatures (and 994 associated comments) on the Milton Coalition’s two petitions

These numbers have skewed upward over time, with blog traffic especially heavy during the municipal election cycles.  Blog views during the 2023 election cycle (when voters ousted Rick Mohrig) were more than double the blog views during the 2017 election cycle (when voters ousted Bill Lusk).

Clearly, the blog has reached a wide swath of Milton’s voters.  However, has this reach translated to impact?  Has positive change been effected?  I believe the answer is certainly YES—at least, in the context of elections . . .  choosing WHO governs Milton.

When the blog was launched, Milton had gone two election cycles without any competitive elections.  This apathy was a result of palpable voter disillusionment and disgust with extreme dysfunction within Milton’s city government—a consequence of petty and personal infighting between Milton’s two long-warring factions.  Citizens were disengaged and ill-informed; no one was watching the store, with predictable results:  council members’ self-interests prevailed over citizens’ interests; arrogance flourished.

In this environment (and often to my amazement), the Milton Coalition Blog emerged as an important instrument of accountability, serving as a government watchdog and especially effective in shaping and influencing elections . . .  a beacon of light shining brightly on the doings of Milton’s government and politics.  Since the blog’s launch in 2016, every subsequent election has involved at least one competitive race.  In two of these competitive races, long-time incumbents (Bill Lusk and Rick Mohrig) experienced lopsided losses.  Just as important, four city council members (Laura Bentley, Paul Moore, Matt Kunz, and Karen Thurman) opted not to run for re-election in the face of almost certain defeat; the misdeeds of these four politicians had been extensively exposed at the blog.  This phenomenon of not seeking re-election in the face of probable defeat had not previously occurred in Milton.  It is a welcome development . . . not quite as a preferable as a competitive election, but nevertheless the result of competitive dynamics and an increased emphasis on accountability.  The Milton Coalition Blog certainly played an influential—if not dispositive—role in much-needed turnover at council (although replacement candidates have often been disappointing and sometimes just as bad).

Besides facilitating the exit of wayward elected representatives, the blog has also yielded benefits in the form of policy changes (especially in zoning) and reforms to government’s architecture—for example, defeat of the CSO and banning of community septic (for residential purposes).  I will not dwell on these victories.  Rather, I suggest readers browse the blog to better understand the Blog’s impact on governmental policy and processes.

Unfortunately, these benefits for the community have often come at a personal cost to me.  I have paid a steep price for my citizen/community advocacy.  In the past, I have been loath to discuss the personal toll of my involvement in politics so as not to dissuade other citizens from engaging.  Rather, a key blog objective has been to encourage–not discourage–citizen engagement.  Thus, for the most part, I have quietly borne the burdens of community advocacy.

Citizens might be surprised by the labor (of love) involved in publishing the blog.  I have literally invested thousands of hours in my research and writing.  Consider the following:  Since its inception, I have published 375 posts (and pages), which were crafted using 306,000+ words, averaging 816 words per post—about the length of the typical op-ed piece in a newspaper.  Consider that the average non-fiction book is 60,000 to 80,000 words, so the blog’s content would fill 4 to 5 typical non-fiction books.  Suffice to say, the MC Blog requires a lot of hard work.

The financial burden of advocacy—out-of-pocket expenditures and even greater opportunity costs–has been significant.  I have spent $25,000+ of my own money on my advocacy.  This includes $15,000 paid to attorneys to protect my First Amendment rights (of free speech, free assembly, and protest).  During the 2017 election cycle, Council Member Bill Lusk and his proxies used lawfare to (try to) silence and discredit me.  A total of 3 ethics complaints were filed; two were directly filed (after the election) by Lusk.  These complaints backfired, with Lusk suffering the worst election defeat in Milton’s history (See Note 2). 

My out-of-pocket costs have been far exceeded by my opportunity costs.  For 2 ½ years, I walked away from my business to focus almost exclusively on community advocacy . . . costing me many hundreds of thousands of dollars.  At the same time (and since then) I have witnessed elected officials brazenly and shamefully monetizing their council positions (while on council and after leaving).  (For example, since leaving office, former council member Laura Bentley has repurposed her political Facebook page to sell real estate.)

Notwithstanding thousands of hours of labor and heavy financial burdens, the highest costs of the blog have been personal.  And by this, I mean nasty (but thankfully . . . wholly unsuccessful) personal attacks–sometimes from the council dais, but just as often in the shadows (for example, posting of anonymous attack videos).  Speaking truth to power means that you make yourself a target of Milton’s wackos . . . and there are many.  What this lunatic fringe lacks in understanding, they more than make up for in viciousness.  Citizens would be shocked by the many hate-filled communications I have received over the past decade . . . truly vile stuff . . . and always from individuals completely ignorant of the facts and usually incited by former elected officials, who trick others into doing their bidding.  Recently, I even received an anonymous, veiled death threat (that I turned over to the Milton Police Department). 

Fortunately, while the personal costs have been quite high, the personal benefits have been more numerous and greater.  Complimentary and supportive communications from citizens have far exceeded the personal attacks.  I have made many lifelong friends.  I understand myself and my fellow humans much better because of my advocacy efforts.  I believe I have made a big positive difference in my community.  And my trust and confidence in Milton’s citizens have been bolstered.  Time and again, I’ve seen you—the citizens of Milton—rise to the occasion.  When required, you have written emails to council, signed petitions, and showed up to speak at council.  When presented with facts and logic, Miltonites have consistently elected the better candidates to council (although often the choices are far from optimal and sometimes unsatisfactory). Kudos to you.

So in closing my 376th blog post/page, it seems fitting to peer into the future:  Whither the blog?  Answer:  I will continue to publish blog posts.  However, my focus will be more selective.  I now live in Alpharetta, so in the future, I will generally not opine on emerging policy issues, unless such issues (if wrongly decided) might have spillover effects in Alpharetta.  My intent is to limit my efforts to legacy issues or else to HOW of government gets done—that is, process and principles . . . my passion.  I know from my 40+ years of professional experience, good results are only possible through good process and through application of sound principles.  Excellent governance (e.g., transparency, accountability, rigor, fairness, honesty) is essential to excellent outcomes.  In addition to addressing legacy issues and the good governance, I plan to write the story of my involvement in Milton politics, weaving in lessons learned that would make Milton’s government more responsive to citizens’ prerogatives.  The blog has always been about you, the denizens of Milton . . . and always will be.

Thanks again for your friendship and support over the past 10 years,

Tim

Note 1:  Included in my blog statistics are numbers for my precursor blog Say-No-To-The-CSO.  However, these numbers generally account for less than 5% of the totals.

Note 2:  In the 2017 election, citizens rendered a harsh–but just–judgment of Mr. Lusk (a city founder who had served on council for 11 years since the city’s founding).  Lusk was handed the worst election defeat in Milton’s history.  Lusk garnered the lowest percentage ever (29%) of votes in a local election.  Lusk also had the most votes (3,164) ever cast against a candidate in the highest ever turnout (4,442) municipal election (that did not include other ballot items) in Milton’s history.  Mr. Lusk blames me, but alas . . . I was just the messenger.

Uncategorized

Key Takeaways From 2025 District 3 Election (Belated Post)

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Better late than never. I had promised commentary on the 2025 District 3 election.  Here it is . . .

Capturing lessons learned is important, because in politics, the past is prologue (Shakespeare, The Tempest).  Following are six takeaways from the 2025 election . . . somewhat of a dog’s breakfast, but here goes . . .

Takeaway #1:  Yancy Was Spared a Historic and Embarrassing Loss Because of Additional Ballot Items. 

Yes, Ike Yancy’s 62-38 defeat was lopsided.  However, Yancy likely would have suffered a much larger margin of defeat but for additional items on the ballot.  The 2025 municipal election vote count was around 5,600.  A typical municipal election—that is, one with only council elections and no additional ballot items—averages about 3,600 votes (about 10% of registered voters) and ranges between 2500 and 4500 votes depending on the number of races and campaign intensity.  Unfortunately, the 2025 campaign was a low-energy affair between two lackluster candidates.  Accordingly, it is reasonable to assume that around 2,500 voters would have cast ballots if the only ballot item was the Jacobus-Yancy match-up.  That means around 3,100 voters were likely drawn to Milton’s polling places because of the (highly contested) Public Service Commission race, the senior exemption ballot initiative, or both.  We can assume these voters are relatively uninformed about municipal politics and therefore the vote differential between Jacobus and Yancy would be narrower with this voter group.  Assuming a generous incumbency advantage of 10% (I normally assume only 5% based on previous elections), Jacobus and Yancy would respectively garner 55% and 45% of these 3,100 low-involvement voters.  Therefore, to achieve the 62%-38% final outcome means that Jacobus would have garnered 70+% of the remaining 2500 voters that would have turned out just for the city council election.  That implies that Yancy would have experienced a historic election defeat only matched by Bill Lusk’s 2017 loss.

Note:  I never believed Yancy had even a remote chance of winning but did not want to dissuade voters from casting ballots with predictions of his demise.

Takeaway #2:  Gimmicks and Trickery Don’t Work.

Yancy’s campaign failed on both a strategic and tactical level . . . so much so that Jacobus’ lame and inauthentic campaign (clearly outsourced to a consultant) appeared brilliant by comparison.  Unfortunately, Yancy seems to have fell under the spell of a few ex-council members and wacko political operatives.  Former council member Laura Bentley pitched especially hard for Mr. Yancy . . . probably to his detriment (as I’ll explain more later).  The skullduggery of Milton’s long-suffering opposition has become tedious and tiresome.  In 2025, Milton’s political malcontents predictably resorted to the same old tricks and gimmicks:  fake candidate forums; sham endorsing organizations; and meaningless PAC endorsements.  Not only are their antics petty and dishonest, but they’re also singularly ineffective.  These clumsy attempts to dupe Milton’s voters have never worked.  Milton’s political tricksters might instead consider respecting the intelligence of Milton’s voters and engaging in honest and thoughtful debate about issues that matter most to citizens.

Takeaway #3:  A Stronger, Independent Candidate Could Have (easily) Defeated Jacobus.

Let’s be honest.  Jan Jacobus is the weakest member of council and that weakness carried over to his campaign.  Jacobus held few meet-and-greets, did not knock on doors, effected no election-day ground game, etc.   Additionally, Jacobus’s record left him dangerously exposed—for example, his inexplicable and inexcusable support for Rick Mohrig in the 2023 election.  Currently, serious issues lurk in Milton’s city government that are not being acknowledged, much less addressed . . . issues that might have been easily and justifiably exploited by Yancy for electoral gain.  Jacobus was supremely beatable; the right challenger could have easily won election.  Ike Yancy was not that challenger.  Yancy’s campaign was doomed from the get-go.  Yancy faced two insurmountable obstacles:  his cluelessness, which I’ve discussed in other blog posts, and his association with discredited former council members (and Milton’s political wackos).  More about the former in Takeaway #4.

Takeaway #4:  Three Strikes . . . You’re Out.  Milton’s Political Factions Should Allow a Worthy Opposition to Emerge in Milton.

Former council member Laura Bentley has emerged as the de facto leader of the opposition (to the current city council). Bentley was Yancy’s strongest backer (although she seemed stingy with her monetary support).  Accordingly, Yancy’s defeat was Bentley’s defeat and, more generally, yet another defeat for Milton’s two long-warring political factions. Since 2021, both factions’ candidates have consistently lost (Tucker, Mohrig, Gordon, Yancy) at the polls or chosen not to run (Bentley, Kunz, Moore) for re-election in the face of strong public opposition and probable defeat. Milton’s factions are batting 0.000

Milton’s political history has been plagued by continuous childish skirmishes between two middle-school-like factions:  Bentley-Moore-Bailey (BMB) vs. Lusk-Kunz-Thurman (LKT).  (For over a decade, Mohrig aligned with the LKT faction–and was despised by the BMB faction–but eventually entered into a bromance with Paul Moore and was backed by both the BMB and LKT factions in his failed 2023 re-election bid.)  Personal and petty disputes took precedence over citizen priorities.  However, beginning with the 2021 election, citizens have repeatedly rejected factional politics. In 2021, council members Bentley and Kunz both exited council. In 2023 Council Member Moore exited council; Council Member Mohrig was defeated; and faction-backed proxy Helen Gordon was defeated. In 2025, BMB’s proxy Yancy was defeated.

Considering Bentley’s pivotal role in the 2025 election, let’s focus on the BMB faction.  In 2021, BMB’s District 1 candidate finished third; Bentley bowed out of her District 2 re-election bid in the face of strong public opposition.  In 2023, the BMB faction (and LKT faction) supported Rick Mohrig’s re-election (District 3); nevertheless, Mohrig only managed to capture 40% of the vote; faction-backed District 1 challenger Helen Gordon lost by an even greater margin (to incumbent Carol Cookerly).  In 2025, BMB’s proxy Ike Yancy captured only 38% of the vote against Jan Jacobus, arguably the weakest incumbent in Milton’s electoral history.  And as discussed in Takeaway #1, the margin of victory would have been much larger but for the presence of other items on the ballot. Clearly, Yancy’s BMB association hurt–and probably doomed–his candidacy.

Let me be blunt.  The discredited BMB and LKT factions need to accept their clear and consistent rejection by voters.  Miltonites obviously want to leave behind the past to focus on the future.  There are serious issues in Milton that need to be debated and resolved.  Unfortunately, the BMB (and LKT) factions are blocking the emergence of a worthy and effective opposition that might expose these issues and offer compelling alternative solutions.  Bentley, et al. would best serve the community by stepping aside to allow a new generation of city leaders to enter the arena.

Takeaway #5:  Yancy’s Candidacy Ironically Undermined His Advocacy About Highway 9 Widening.

Challenger Yancy’s number one issue was the Highway 9 widening project—more specifically, his preference for narrow (4 foot) vs. wide (8 foot) sidewalks.  Go figure!  I’m stupefied that he would make this issue the centerpiece of his campaign.  It is not an issue that can take you to the promised land.  Moreover, Yancy’s obsession with sidewalk widths effectively placed the sidewalk width issue front-and-center on the ballot.  The city council election, in part, was made a referendum on Highway 9 sidewalk widths.  Accordingly, Yancy’s lopsided loss could reasonably be inferred to be a vote for wider sidewalks.  Even most (all but one) precincts encompassing Highway 9 rejected Mr. Yancy.  So irony of ironies, Yancy (unwittingly) hurt the cause he most cares about.

Note:  To his credit, Mr. Yancy has been a frequent and loud critic of the Highway 9 project, bringing much needed scrutiny to a sometimes troubled project.  For this, he deserves plaudits from citizens.  Hopefully, Yancy will continue to serve as a citizen watchdog for the Highway 9 project . . . although he likely needs to avoid the issue of sidewalk widths to maintain credibility.

Takeaway #6:  Council Should Not Interpret the Election Outcome as a Mandate or Endorsement

The current city council might be tempted to interpret Jacobus’ lopsided election win as a mandate, a rousing endorsement of their record, or both.  It was neither, and it would be a (big) mistake to assume otherwise.  Citizens were faced with an unappetizing choice between two unpalatable candidates . . . they unenthusiastically chose the better of the two.  That’s the long-and-short-of-it.  Based on the above discussion, Jacobus’ election (or more accurately, Yancy’s non-election) might best be interpreted as a rejection of Milton’s factions, which Yancy represented, rather than a loving embrace of the current council.  If any policy conclusions are to be drawn from the election, I would suggest citizens endorsed 1) the current Highway 9/Deerfield (renewal) master plan, which even Yancy supports, and 2) wider (vs. narrower) sidewalks along Highway 9.

Rather than patting themselves on the back, council would be well-advised to work on creating and executing a positive agenda for Milton’s future.  Unfortunately, for the past two years, the current council has had to expend much time, money, and effort on cleaning up messes from previous councils (particularly the 2022-23 council).  The biggest of these messes has been the Chang case.

Most importantly—and I cannot overemphasize this—the current council needs to understand that Milton will forever wallow in problems of its own making if it does not devote more attention to good governance . . . my passion since I began my advocacy 10+ years ago.  Good governance relates to HOW policy gets made and implemented.  Process and principles are essential to good policy outcomes.  Council must redouble its commitment to the core elements of good governance: accountability, fairness, rigor, responsiveness, integrity, transparency, and respect for the rule of law.  Good governance is not accomplished through window dressing: meaningless resolutions and the collection of phony awards.  Rather, council must focus on fundamentally reforming the architecture of local government and implementing better processes and procedures that incorporate the elements of good governance.

Advocating For Good Governance,

Tim

Note: I am currently writing a blog post on former council member Laura Bentley. Because Bentley has become the de facto leader of the opposition (to Milton’s current council), it is important for citizens to better understand Ms. Bentley and her politics. This is especially important because of Ms. Bentley’s lack of written documentation of her current political positions, thus requiring reliance on other sources of information, particularly Ms. Bentley’s four-year record while on council.

More importantly, the rise and subsequent fall of Ms. Bentley as a political influencer is the most important thread in the story of Milton’s politics over the past decade. In fact, it is impossible to understand Milton’s politics without understanding the arc of Ms. Bentley’s political career.

Uncategorized

Happy Independence Day and Blog Reactivation

Posted on by Milton Coalition

Milton Coalition Blog Readers:

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.)