Tag: history

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

McFly Vs. Magoo:  Two Flyweights “Battle” It Out in District 3

Posted on by Milton Coalition

I promised an analysis of the 2025 District 3 election in Milton, so here it is.  It is possible that this will be my only post before election day.  (See Note 1.)  We’ll see.  Perhaps, events will play out such that I feel obliged to publish additional posts.  BTW, early voting began October 13th.  Election day is November 4th. 

The District 3 race is the only competitive race this election cycle and pits a political George McFly (Back to the Future), incumbent Jan Jacobus, against a political Mr. Magoo, challenger Ike Yancy.  Suffice to say, the District 3 race is not a battle of the Titans, but rather more of a school-boy tussle between two political flyweights.  Unfortunately, citizens should not expect a ferocious debate about serious issues that Miltonites care about.

Let me be blunt.  Neither candidate deserves the honor and privilege of representing the fine citizens of Milton.  Miltonites deserve better . . . much better.  However, elections often present voters with suboptimal—and in this case, unsatisfactory–choices.  (That is why voters should have the option of “none-of-the-above” on ballots.)  And that is the case with the District 3 race.  Neither candidate clears the bar for acceptability.  However, neither candidate is so unacceptable that I feel compelled to endorse his opponent.

While I cannot endorse either candidate, there is a preferred candidate and that is Jan Jacobus. 

Below I will discuss my impressions—good but often bad—of both candidates.  I hope my analysis is useful to citizens.  However, I would certainly urge voters to attend a candidate meet-and-greet, to visit the candidates’ websites/Facebook pages, and to review each candidate’s campaign finance reports.  Following is a link to the Milton Coalition page providing links to each candidate’s website, Facebook page, etc.

2025 Election: One-Stop Shop For Candidate and Elections Information.

Following are my impressions of each candidate.

Jan Jacobus is the incumbent.  He is the George McFly in this race.  He is fundamentally a low-energy, passive, go-along-to-get-along council member.  He is the weakest member of council . . . an archetypal back-bencher.  I believe he only ran for council because the Crooked Creek HOA board (on which he served) decided it always needs a representative on council to protect/advance Crooked Creek’s interests.  Perhaps good for Crooked Creek, but potentially adverse to broader community interests.  Milton deserves council members that represent all citizens, not a narrow constituency. 

In 2021, Jacobus slid onto council without opposition.  And to my knowledge, before joining council, he did nothing to engage citizens about their concerns and aspirations.  At the time, I criticized Jacobus for this passivity.  Unfortunately, his lack of engagement carried over to Jacobus’s tenure on council . . . with one notable and important exception that I will discuss later.  Jacobus is not one to make waves.  He stood idly by while Council Members Rick Mohrig and Paul Moore ran amuck in Milton’s city government.  This includes the Paul Moore ethics scandal, council intrusion into HOA minutiae, and Milton’s corrupt election design process.  Jacobus even voted to eliminate a polling location in his own district.  Jacobus was the ONLY council member that remained aligned with Moore and Mohrig until the bitter end:  Moore’s withdrawal from the District 2 race and Mohrig’s stinging election defeat.  The other four council members (belatedly but thankfully) came to their senses and endorsed challengers Hene and Cranmer.  Jacobus said nothing about Mohrig’s bypassing the city manager to direct staff; about Mohrig’s misbehavior in designing Milton’s elections; about Mohrig’s ridiculous hacking claims; or about Mohrig’s trampling a citizen’s basic civil rights when he trespassed on said citizen’s property to conduct an unauthorized investigation.  Not a peep.  It reminds me of the quote from Edmund Burke:  “All that is required for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing.”

So given these troubling negatives, why the preference for Jacobus? 

First, there is one important policy issue where Jacobus has (belatedly) taken the lead:  the master plan for the Deerfield/Highway 9 area.  It took Phil Cranmer’s election to council to motivate Jacobus on this issue, but he has finally risen to the occasion and reportedly is the lead council member on this important initiative.  And it is certainly worth noting that  Jacobus’s challenger Yancy has been effusive in his praise for the proposed master plan.  So there is certainly an argument to be made that, given his leadership role in the Deerfield/Highway 9 master plan, Jacobus probably should be allowed finish his work on this important initiative.

Second, while I typically have a soft spot for challengers/underdogs (and the energy and new ideas they bring), I believe Jacobus’s council experience, particularly when contrasted with Yancy’s cluelessness, is a strength.

Third, Jacobus is a do-no-harm sort of candidate . . . much preferred to a potentially harmful candidate such as Mr. Yancy . . . as I will discuss below.

Now, let’s take a look at Ike Yancy, who is the challenger and underdog.  Yancy is the Mr. (J. Quincy) Magoo in the District 3 race.  Yancy’s defining characteristic is his cluelessness.  I’m not sure why he’s running and I’m not sure he even knows.  I’ve examined his NextDoor postings and campaign website/Facebook page and have come to the inescapable conclusion that he suffers from extreme political nearsightedness and lacks the will/means to remedy his political myopia.  I’ve never seen him speak at council or even attend council meetings.  Even now in the throes of an election campaign, he is not attending council meetings.  Troubling, to say the least.

Mr. Yancy’s singular focus is on the Highway 9 widening project.  I applaud Mr. Yancy for engaging on this issue.  He has been the loudest and most consistent critic of this project . . . and there has been much to criticize, including inadequate city supervision/engagement.  However, based on his most recent utterings on the issue, it seems Mr. Yancy is mostly fine with the current design.  When you strip back his musings on this issue—some of which are wild exaggerations (e.g., 100s of acres and 1000s of trees lost in Milton)—Mr. Yancy’s platform on Highway 9 boils down to the width of sidewalks.  He advocates for 4-foot vs. 8-foot (current design) sidewalks.  Highway 9 sidewalk widths seem to be the centerpiece of Yancy’s campaign.  It’s a relatively trivial issue that most citizens likely don’t care about.  And if they do, I suspect most would disagree with Mr. Yancy. 

So why is widening Highway 9 such a big deal for Mr. Yancy?  Well, Mr. Yancy lives in a townhome community along Highway 9.  This is a personal issue for him.  Yancy has been clear in asserting that the Highway 9 project is negatively impacting property values . . . that is, he has a financial stake in this matter.  On social media, he has ranted about the road widening project (and perhaps he is correct about its impact on property values).  But this gets us to a critical point.  If Yancy ascends to council, based on his postings about the financial impact of the Highway 9 project on homeowners like himself, it seems Yancy has a clear (financial) conflict of interest.  I believe Mr. Yancy would have to recuse himself when Highway 9 issues come before council.  That he does not realize this conflict speaks to his naiveté.  Citizens might recall that the Paul Moore ethics scandal consumed city resources and city council attention for over a year.  Despite spending $100,000+, Moore was found guilty of 3 ethics violations, including financial conflict-of-interest.  Perhaps Mr. Yancy will assert that he will assume the ethics risk and not recuse himself from Highway 9 project matters.  However, is it fair or responsible for Yancy to subject council and citizens to yet another drawn-out ethics inquiry that would shame the city and drain government resources and attention?  Considering Mr. Moore’s ethics convictions, I am quite sure that Mr. Yancy would not beat an ethics complaint filed against him.  And I believe that this time around, he would find little sympathy/support (unlike with Paul Moore) from council or city staff.  It strikes me that Yancy would have greater impact on Highway 9 issues continuing as a community advocate than as an elected but ethically recused council member.

One other point regarding Highway 9.  Council recently (September 15) approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the Georgia Department of Transportation regarding the Highway 9 project.  A perfect time for candidate Yancy to show up, address council, and voice his concerns, right?  Unfortunately, Mr. Yancy was a no-show.  Perhaps, even Mr. Yancy realizes his objections to the Highway 9 improvement project is not his ticket to city council.  Mind you, there are other serious issues that Mr. Yancy could run on and win.  However, he seems not to be aware of (most of) them.  Some of these issues (but not all) involve problems that his ex-council member supporters (like Laura Bentley) would prefer he not broach because of their complicity in creating these problems . . . so perhaps Mr. Yancy finds himself politically hamstrung regarding certain issues.

Enough about Highway 9.  I have several other concerns about Mr. Yancy.  Like Mr. Jacobus, Mr. Yancy was also a Mohrig supporter, albeit much more strident.  That should be a big red flag for voters.  Given Yancy’s unwavering support for Mohrig, in the face of so much misconduct by Mohrig, it seems fair to ask whether Yancy would comport himself in a similar fashion?  Would he bypass the city manager to direct staff (in violation of the Milton city charter)?  Would he conduct unauthorized investigations of citizens that violate the basic civil rights of those citizens?  Would Yancy observe Georgia’s open meetings/records laws?  Would Yancy countenance committees that operate like Milton’s errant election design committee?  Would Yancy lodge ridiculous complaints that waste valuable government resources?

Yet another issue is some of Mr. Yancy’s Nextdoor postings, which not only highlight his lack of situational awareness, but also raise concerns about his judgment and his potential for recklessness.

It is interesting to note that Mr. Yancy invoked his veteran status to criticize Mohrig’s opponent Phil Cranmer for not voting in municipal elections, never mind that Cranmer served on Milton’s Parks and Recreation Committee for 5 years prior to his election to council . . . a much more serious demonstration of civic duty (than voting).  Frankly, Mr. Yancy’s post was a cheap shot.  For Yancy, Cranmer’s failure to vote was an egregious civic sin that warranted a scathing Nextdoor post, while Mohrig’s trampling of a citizen’s basic civil liberties went uncommented upon.  This leads me to question Mr. Yancy’s judgment and/or lack of situational awareness.

A few other Nextdoor postings from Mr. Yancy are even more troubling.  In one posting, he posted a link to a salacious political video whose creator is anonymous.   The video was a hit piece that was short on facts and long on innuendo.  In another posting, Mr. Yancy provided a link to a radical media website that has been judged by non-partisan media fact-check organizations to be highly biased and non-factual.  Many of this media site’s story bylines are “staff writers.”  Let’s be honest . . . anonymous posters/creators/reporters can say anything; they are not credible.  By citing such anonymous sources, Mr. Yancy impugns his own credibility and provides troubling insights into how he gathers and processes information.  Such postings do not inspire confidence that Yancy is a person that will dig deep and rely on facts and logic to make decisions on behalf of citizens.

Lastly, I am concerned about Mr. Yancy’s connections to certain former council members, particularly Laura Bentley.  In 2023, when Paul Moore and Rick Mohrig exited council, the last of Milton’s political dinosaurs were put to pasture.  Good riddance.  For 17 years, Milton’s long-warring factions had bickered with each other over nonsense while important citizens’ priorities often languished.  The current council has had to repair a lot of damage associated with Bentley-Moore-Mohrig era (2018 – 2023) . . . with additional mending still to accomplish.  However, the current council is working well together and increasingly focused on Milton’s future, such as revitalizing the Deerfield/Highway 9 area (Mr. Jacobus’s focus area).  A emphasis on the future and citizen prerogatives needs to be maintained and intensified . . . and the ghosts of past councils need to be kept at bay.  Given his association with past politicians and his political cluelessness, a real danger exists that Mr. Yancy might (wittingly or unwittingly) provide these former council members an avenue for disrupting a future-leaning, citizen-centric council agenda.

Ordinarily, I am sympathetic to underdogs/challengers (having been one myself for much of my 10 years of involvement in local politics).  And council certainly does need a member that will more forcefully challenge the status quo, with a particular emphasis on improving Milton’s governance model (how things get done):  more accountability; increased transparency; higher integrity standards; improved competence; and greater fairness.  Unfortunately, Mr. Yancy does not strike me as such an agent for change, but rather he seems to be a throw-back to an ugly past that Milton needs to move beyond.

Having said all that, I applaud Mr. Yancy for challenging Mr. Jacobus and forcing him to earn his seat on council.  And I congratulate Yancy for his advocacy regarding Highway 9 (although I don’t agree with all his stances).  I realize my criticism of Mr. Yancy (and Mr. Jacobus) is harsh.  I do not mean to imply Yancy (or Jacobus) are bad people.  I suspect both are good fathers, sons, husbands, colleagues, neighbors, and friends.  However, Mr. Yancy’s obvious cluelessness combined with the questionable company he is keeping present a real-and-present danger.  Unfortunately, it is the case that clueless council members in the clutches of unscrupulous politicians and political activists are easily compromised and often corrupted.  The risk for such corruption seems high (and perhaps unacceptable) with Mr. Yancy.  Little such risk exists with Mr. Jacobus, who is a mostly do-no-harm, experienced council member who is (belatedly) providing positive leadership of the Deerfield/Highway 9 (re)design initiative. Jacobus seems the better of these two underserving candidates.

Advocating For Good Governance

Tim

Note 1:  Readers need to understand that posts like this one require a lot of time and effort.  Publishing a blog is not a trivial exercise.  It necessitates a big investment to discover facts; to work through the logic; to find the right message; to identify graphics; and to choose the right words.  A typical long-form post (like the above post) requires 10+ hours.

Uncategorized

2025 Milton Elections:  Only District 3 Will Be Contested . . . Yancy vs. Jacobus

Posted on by Milton Coalition

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. 

2025 Election: One-Stop Shop For Candidate and Elections Information.

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.)

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.)