Commissioner Murman quoted in this Tampa Bay Times article on county lobbyist reform:

Hillsborough Commissioner Sandy Murman calls for a crackdown on lobbying

• Steve Contorno, Times Staff Writer

Wednesday, September 23, 2015 2:02pm

TAMPA — Amid an investigation into whether influence played a role in the awarding of a Go Hillsborough contract, the head of the Hillsborough County Commission says it’s time to crack down on lobbying “loopholes.”

Commissioner and Chairwoman Sandy Murman announced Wednesday that she will propose a new department, the Office of Professional Lobbyist Registration, to monitor lobbying. Murman also vowed to tighten rules for who is permitted to lobby.

“Recent events call for higher standards, greater accountability and new rules to protect the public,” Murman said in a news release. She expects to put her plan before the commission at its Oct. 7 meeting.

The proposal is in response to the controversy surrounding a contract awarded to engineering firm Parsons Brinckerhoff to conduct public outreach for Go Hillsborough, the county’s transportation initiative. County Administrator Mike Merrill has asked Sheriff David Gee to investigate whether that $1.35 million deal was influenced by Parsons’ hiring of Beth Leytham, a Tampa public relations consultant with close ties to several commissioners, as a subcontractor.

A review of the deal earlier this year by the county’s internal auditor found the contract was awarded legally.

One of the most notable proposed changes to the lobbying rules is that electronic communications by a person paid to represent a company or issue would be considered lobbying. The current Hillsborough County ordinance, last altered in 2007, defines lobbying simply as “meeting privately with affected personnel,” which would likely exempt text messages and emails.

It’s a key designation and it’s especially relevant to the ongoing controversy that has rocked Hillsborough County Center. Leytham has maintained that she is not a lobbyist and did no lobbying, in part because any communications she had with county staff or commissioners before Parsons was awarded the contract were sent electronically.

“If you are being paid by someone else, and advocate a position that benefits them, that should be reported,” Murman said.

For years, lobbying has been a self-policed endeavor. Lobbyists are supposed to sign a registry in the reception areas of the County Commission, administrator, attorney or other departments when they meet with officials and staff. If the meeting takes place off-site, the lobbyist is supposed to notify the clerk of the Board of County Commissioners within seven days.

It’s a loosely maintained system that rarely, if ever, results in punishment if not followed.

“This office has not had any violation in regards to the lobbying ordinance in many, many years,” said Mary Helen Ferris with the county attorney’s office.

Murman would continue to put the onus on lobbyists to self-report but it would be electronic and submitted to a public online database. Any contact with elected officials or staff must be reported, according to Murman’s release.

Commissioner Ken Hagan said Murman’s proposal had merit.

But he also wondered if it would be hard to pin down a definition of lobbying that won’t ensnare residents.

“That’s always been one of the challenges,” he said. “The argument can be made that someone approaching an elected official at Publix to weigh in on an issue is lobbying. Where is that line drawn?”

Contact Steve Contorno at scontorno@tampabay.com. Follow @scontorno.

Commissioner Murman quoted in this StPetersBlog article on county lobbying reform:

Sandy Murman announces effort to clean up special interests’ influence in county government

By Staff Reports –

Sep 23, 2015

Hillsborough County Commission Chairwoman Sandy Murman announced today a set of reforms for those who do business with County Commission officials and staff in the wake of the controversy involving the $1.35 million contract the county made with transportation consultant Parsons Brinckerhoff on the Go Hillsborough transportation initiative.

Nine days ago WTSP10 questioned the influence of Tampa public relations consultant Beth Leytham in Parsons Brinckerhoff acquiring the contract. Leytham is the politically wired-in consultant who is making $187,500 to do communications work with Parsons on the Go Hillsborough effort.

The 10 News story set off a firestorm at the County Center, leading to County Administrator Mike Merrill on Monday to call on Hillsborough County Sheriff David Gee to investigate the Parsons Brinckerhoff contract with the county.

Murman will propose an ordinance, to be drafted by the county attorney, at the October 7 Board of County Commission meeting that she is calling  the “General Accountability Plan.” The plan will call for the creation of an Office of Professional Lobbyists Registration to be established inside the county attorney’s office.  All professionally paid lobbyists will be required to register by paying a fee (amount not stated), and list any and all clients before the county. Nonprofit lobbyists would be required to register annually but pay no fee.

“Recent events call for higher standards, greater accountability and new rules to protect the public,” said Murman in a press release.

Murman says the current practice of registering meeting in the lobbyist registry at the County Center would continue, but first time-violators will be given a warning, then a fine, then and then a “potential ban” from lobbying the county or any county agency. Any contact with an elected official or employee would have to be reported within 72 hours, which would be accessible for citizens to review via an online lobbyist registration database.

“If you are being paid by someone else, and advocate a position or process that benefits them, that should be reported,” said Commissioner Murman. “It is my hope that these efforts will make our county process more transparent and allow the public to see how special interests, profit or non-profit, affect their local government.”

Upon her first reading of the Murman proposals, Parsons Brinckerhoff critic Sharon Calvert said she was supportive, saying “something obviously need to be done.” But she says the county could go much further with an investigation, including looking at the abuse of the Consultant Competitive Negotiation Act (CCNA).

“They were able to procure with no bid, no RFP, no requirement, and then they were able to hire subcontractors,” she says of how Parsons was chosen as the contractor on the transportation effort. “I’m just concerned on how that CCNA process has been used by the county.”

Calvert also notes that these new proposals may not have prevented the current situation with Go Hillsborough. Beth Leytham has said she is not a lobbyist, and thus wouldn’t be subject to the dictates of the proposed ordinance.

Leytham, along with County Administrator Merrill say that everything was done above board in the case, something that will Sheriff David Gee will apparently have the final say so on.

Other ideas floated around the county to tighten the reigns on influence peddlers include banning any person or person associated with an entity paid by any fund, including local campaign funds, engaged in influencing local elections, from lobbying any county level elected official or staffer for a period of 4 years.

Commissioner Murman quoted in this 10 News article about lobbyist reform in county:

10 Investigates prompts major lobbyist reform proposal

Noah Pransky, WTSP

3:16 p.m. EDT September 23, 2015

TAMPA, Florida – A week after the Hillsborough Board of County Commissioners ordered an audit of a county contract scrutinized by 10 Investigates for possible influence by a well-connected consultant, the commission chair proposed Wednesday sweeping reforms to the county’s lobbying laws to prevent a repeat occurrence.

The 10 Investigates report into local public relations consultant Beth Leytham revealed she may have improperly lobbied county commissioners and staff members prior to the awarding of a lucrative public outreach contract for the transportation initiative now known as “Go Hillsborough.” The deal, which has ballooned in cost to $1.35 million, was awarded to Leytham’s team without ever going out to a bid.

10 Investigates also reported last week that Hillsborough County doesn’t enforce its lobbying regulations.

Hillsborough County Commission Chairwoman Sandy Murman said Wednesday she plans to ask the county attorney’s office to draft an ordinance aimed at cleaning up “the murky practice of lobbying the Hillsborough County Commission.”

Murman’s “Greater Accountability Plan” calls for the creation of an Office of Professional Lobbyist Registration under the county attorney. She also proposes keeping lobbyist registries online for any citizen to review. Currently, they are only aggregated digitally every three months.

“This is not geared toward any one particular person or people at all,” Murman said.  “This is a guideline that I have wanted to establish for a long time that’s very similar to Tallahassee.”

But, Murman, a former Florida House Ethics Chair, acknowledged “the timing was right” and “timing is everything.”

ALSO READ: Hillsborough Sheriff to investigate Go Hillsborough

“Recent events call for higher standards, greater accountability and new rules to protect the public,” Murman added in a press release. “Lobbyists and special interests will now be required to register, review and sign a set of guidelines from the County Attorney, and report any contact they make with elected officials or staff.”

The county’s current lobbying rules already require lobbyists to register contact with elected officials and staff, but county administrator Mike Merrill said, “we are not the lobby police.” Murman’s plan could help create an enforcement office.

Interestingly enough, Murman was one of the commissioners tied to Leytham’s behind-the-scenes influence during the procurement of the Go Hillsborough contract. But she has tried to put distance between herself and Leytham, whom she referred to as a friend. Murman also said Leytham had never lobbied her.

WATCH: How politicians react to questions about Leytham

The lobbying reforms would require “professionally-paid lobbyists” to list any and all clients they represent before the county. However, Leytham told 10 Investigates she wasn’t paid to lobby, and therefore didn’t have to register. Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn and Commissioner Hagan, whom Leytham advises politically, both supported her claim.

But Murman’s press release said, “The definition of a lobbyist and who is permitted to lobby will be tightened to end ambiguity and close loopholes.”

“If you are being paid by someone else, and advocate a position or process that benefits them, that should be reported,” Murman said in the press release. “It is my hope that these efforts will make our county process more transparent and allow the public to see how special interests, profit or non-profit, affect their local government.”

Murman will make the request of the county attorney at the next BOCC meeting on Oct. 7.

TAMPA BAY TIMES: County must clear the air after 10 Investigates report

Initial reaction from ethics watchdogs was positive.

“We applaud the effort to close the loopholes in Hillsborough County’s lobbying registration law,” said Ben Wilcox, Research Director for Tallahassee-based nonprofit Integrity Florida. “The law should be clear about who is required to register and it should be enforced so the public can see who is trying to influence public policy.”

Commissioner Murman quoted in this Tampa Bay Times article on Go Hillsborough:

Go Hillsborough referendum losing steam as commissioners waver

• Steve Contorno, Times Staff Writer

Tuesday, September 22, 2015 8:30pm

TAMPA — Hillsborough County’s transportation referendum is in dire straits.

The proposal to raise the sales tax to fund transit and road projects suffered a series of setbacks in recent weeks that has cast doubt on whether county commissioners will even put it on the ballot next November.

“If a vote was taken today, the votes aren’t there for this thing to pass,” Commissioner Al Higginbotham said.

The latest blow came Monday when County Administrator Mike Merrill asked Sheriff David Gee to investigate a $1.35 million contract for Parsons Brinckerhoff to conduct public outreach for the county’s transportation initiative, Go Hillsborough.

A recent story by WTSP10 News questioned whether Parsons Brinckerhoff was awarded that deal because of its ties to Beth Leytham, a politically connected public relations consultant who the company hired as a subcontractor.

Merrill insisted there was no wrongdoing and enlisted the Hillsborough County Sheriff’s Office in hopes of restoring credibility to Go Hillsborough. An audit earlier this year said the contract was awarded legally to a preapproved firm.

Nevertheless, a pall has been cast over the initiative. Several commissioners — already on the fence about a sales tax increase — now doubt the plan can recover.

The Tampa Bay Times spoke with all seven Hillsborough County commissioners after Merrill announced the sheriff’s investigation. Three commissioners, Kevin Beckner, Les Miller and Ken Hagan, said if Gee’s investigation does not raise any red flags, they will still support putting a half-cent sales tax increase on the 2016 ballot.

Two commissioners, Higginbotham and Stacy White, said they likely won’t support a plan for a referendum regardless of the sheriff’s findings.

Commissioner Victor Crist said he remains a “tough sell.” He’s “not completely sold on it” and doesn’t “see an absolute need for having to put something on the ballot” next year.

The wildcard is Commissioner Sandy Murman. The board chairmwoman has frequently bemoaned the county’s transportation woes and vowed to seek a solution the majority of the board could get behind. For months, a half-cent sales tax hike seemed to be that path. It was a delicate compromise for the Republican-controlled board in a county whose voters resoundingly rejected a full-cent increase in 2010.

But now Murman is less sure. In an interview with the Times, she suggested there might be other ways to find money for transportation besides raising the sales tax.

“This may not be the right time for us to do it,” she said of the referendum. “We have to have the certainty that this has a good chance of passing.

“Right now, I don’t think we have that.”

Until the sheriff’s review is done, Merrill halted Parsons Brinckerhoff and any subcontractors, including Leytham, from working on Go Hillsborough’s outreach efforts. But the county will continue to hold public meetings through mid October, including one today in Bloomingdale.

So far the county has paid $978,154 to Parsons Brinckerhoff. The engineering firm is scheduled to prepare a report for the Hillsborough County Policy Leadership Group on Nov. 5, but it’s unclear if Merrill’s order will affect that time frame.

That report, based on public input, is supposed to identity which road and transit projects should be completed in the first decade of the proposed 30-year tax. If the leadership group, which includes city leaders, approved the plan, then county commissioners were expected to vote Dec. 2 on whether to put the tax on the ballot.

Beckner said his colleagues were caving to outside pressure from vocal antitax opponents. He said it was a “political knee-jerk reaction” to back away from Go Hillsborough when the county is just weeks away from unveiling its blueprint for tackling gridlock.

“How can you say you’re not going to support something when you don’t even know what the damn plan is?” Beckner said. “I don’t see how anybody could say we don’t support it unless you say you don’t believe in investing in transportation and don’t have the political stomach to put it to a vote.”

In addition to the sheriff’s review, Beckner said he still wants an independent auditor to look at the Parsons contract and Leytham’s involvement so the issue can be put to rest.

Go Hillsborough has faced other headwinds in recent weeks beyond that contract. For one, commissioners have sensed mounting opposition from antitax groups rallying against the referendum.

And attendance at a second round of public meetings that cost the county an additional $250,000 has been lackluster. Those meetings were supposed to help legitimize Go Hillsborough after the 2010 referendum was criticized for a lack of transparency. Some commissioners have questioned whether more meetings were even necessary.

On Tuesday, one person attended a morning meeting at the Egypt Lake Recreation Center.

But proponents of Go Hillsborough said the most damaging wound was self-inflicted. It came in early September when the county put a 1-cent sales tax back in play after spending months building support for a half-cent hike.

The decision to reintroduce a full-penny increase originated from meetings between Merrill, Leytham and the county staff. The intent was to show residents the stark differences between what a 1-cent hike could fund versus a half-cent.

But commissioners said that decision blindsided them and muddled the message.

“That was confusing to people,” Miller said, “and it gave those against any referendum, against any tax increase, more ammunition to come at us with.”

Contact Steve Contorno at scontorno@tampabay.com. Follow @scontorno.

Where Hillsborough’s seven commissioners stand on the 

Go Hillsborough transportation referendum:

“This may not be the right time for us to do it. We have to have to the certainty that this has a good chance of passing. Right now, I don’t think we have that.” — Sandy Murman,District 1

“I’ve got mixed feelings. I’m not completely sold on it. . . . I don’t see an absolute need for having to put something on the ballot.” — Victor Crist, District 2

“I would probably still be a supporter of the half-cent sales tax plan. I don’t see how there’s another way to meet the needs of the county.” — Les Miller, District 3

“I’ve been voting no on that to date. Nothing has changed my mind at this point.” — Stacy White,District 4

“When government is considering spending billions of our tax dollars, transparency and voter approval is essential. That is why the outreach has been unprecedented and the board will place this issue on the 2016 ballot.” — Ken Hagan, District 5

“Yes I do (support it). We just need to reinstill the public trust and provide complete transparency in the process.” — Kevin Beckner, 

District 6

“I don’t support it . . . I still feel we have the ability within our means to fund this.” — Al Higginbotham, District 7

Commissioner Murman mentioned in this Tampa Tribune article on police review board:

POLITICS

Tampa police review board draws 73 applications and counting

BY Christopher O’Donnell
Tribune staff 
Published: September 21, 2015   |   Updated: September 22, 2015 at 05:38 AM

TAMPA — The city’s new police review board is unpopular with police unions and community activists and still the subject of a running battle between Mayor Bob Buckhorn and some City Council members.

That has not dampened the interest of people who want a role keeping tabs on Tampa Police Department.

While most citizen boards typically get a handful of applications, the city received 73 to serve on its Citizens Review Board in just eight days, records show.

Among those who want to sift through the findings of police internal affair investigations are a cigar salesman, a reverend, a retired fire pilot and the husband of a Hillsborough County commissioner. The 11 places on the board are open to Tampa residents or business owners. The deadline to apply is Oct. 15.

Augie Mauser, an 80-year-old retired University of South Florida professor who now runs a mobile retail cigar business, put his name forward because of his experience teaching and developing special education programs that were used in corrections centers. “I felt that I was more than qualified,” Mauser said. “I worked on education programs for prisons and with the State of Florida. I worked with learning disabilities and delinquency, so I understand the population.”

Another applicant is James A. Murman, the husband of Hillsborough County Commissioner Sandy Murman.

Murman, 70, works as a personal injury attorney for Barr Murman and Tonelli. He is also a member of the Florida Defense Lawyers Association, the American Board of Trial Advocates, and a former Chairman of the Hillsborough County Grievance Committee.

“Handling litigation is basically a fact-finding issue,” Murman said. “I’m competent and would like to continue that. I think that would be important on a police review board.”

For others, the board is a way to give back to the community.

“If you want to increase our quality of life and standard of living, that’s what you do – you serve,” said applicant Neil Cosentino, a retired MacDill Air Force Base fighter pilot who was also behind campaigns to save the Friendship TrailBridge.

Buckhorn created the review board after community groups and others had lobbied the city council for civilian oversight of Tampa Police Department in the wake of reports of police officers around the nation brutalizing the public and a Department of Justice probe of the Tampa Police Department’s ticketing of black bicyclists.

To be eligible for the board, applicants must pass a background check and complete the Citizens Police Academy and accompany police officers in patrol cars for nine hours to give them a better grasp of the challenges officers face.

In addition to internal affairs investigations, board members will review police pursuits and other police practices and issue recommendations to the police chief in cases where they feel an investigation was not thorough or discipline was inadequate. The recommendations are not binding but could throw more of a spotlight on cases where citizens feel aggrieved at their treatment by police officers.

Buckhorn’s executive order allows him to appoint all but two of the board members, angering council members who say that gives him too much control. They are scheduled on Thursday to discuss moving ahead with an ordinance that would give them seven picks and the city mayor only four.

Tampa for Justice, a coalition of civic groups including the NAACP and the American Civil Liberties Union, say the review board as proposed would do little to keep the police in check. The group is calling for the review board to have subpoena power and to be able to conduct its own investigations.

“Many members of the community are angered over the mayor’s insistence on creating a Board with no legitimacy,” said Kelly Benjamin, an organizer with the group. “They are waiting for this process to play out with the city council.”

Commissioner Murman quoted in this Joe Henderson column on Go Hillsborough:

JOE HENDERSON COLUMNS

COLUMN

Henderson: Latest controversy could lead to stop sign for Go Hillsborough

By Joe Henderson | Tribune Staff 
Published: September 18, 2015

The plan by Hillsborough County commissioners to seek a sales tax hike that would generate billions for transportation needs looks about as well-oiled as the Tampa Bay Buccaneers’ pass defense.

Or offensive game plan.

Or … oh, you get the idea.

That became clear Wednesday when commissioners unanimously decided to have an official review of how an engineering firm got a $1.3 million contract to lead the Go Hillsborough effort. This became an issue after a WTSP 10 News television report that focused on alleged cronyism in the process, and it’s likely this will end in one of two ways.

If the review finds the charge is correct, the county will have a mess. The company, Parsons Brinckerhoff, has already been paid. It could wind up in court. Given the time it would take to sort out all those issues, any attempt to place the referendum on the ballot for November 2016 could be moot.

“It’s very clear there is an effort to derail Go Hillsborough,” said Commissioner Kevin Beckner, who made the motion for the review. “If there are any questions about the process, they need to be answered. I want to clear up the cloud over Go Hillsborough and I think we can.

“But if we start this with the conclusion that the process was bad and Go Hillsborough is bad, then we have a problem.”

The opponents Beckner referred to are making much of the way Parsons Brinckerhoff got the job. Rather than going through the standard bid process, the company was chosen from a group of 10 engineering companies through a process known as “direct select.” According to an October 2014 memo from County Administrator Mike Merrill, the companies were on a county list to “provide services when needed.”

Merrill said this is in accordance with the Consultants Competitive Negotiations Act. That allows for qualified firms to be chosen for specific jobs.

That leads to the second point. If the review finds no violations occurred, as Merrill has insisted is the case, opponents will scream it’s a whitewash and business as usual. Even if commissioners went ahead with the referendum, imagine trying to convince a skeptical public that this isn’t an inside job where taxpayers get handed the bill.

I thought from the beginning that asking voters to approve any sales tax hike was risky business, even if everything worked perfectly. It has not. Something like this could spell doom.

“I’d rather know this now than in November (2016) when people have soundly defeated it,” Commission Chair Sandy Murman said. “These revelations are distracting. We have to be held accountable. We have to be transparent.

“And we have to solve the transportation problem. Our economic future depends on it. We can’t attract the kind of corporate headquarters we need unless we solve this.”

That’s the big thing that gets lost in the intrigue. Fixing the county’s inadequate transportation system will remain a top priority whether Go Hillsborough succeeds or not.

Murman said voters tell her they’re confused about how it would work — and that’s before this controversy.

Leaders have been going back and forth whether to ask for a half-cent or full penny increase from voters. What would they do with all that money, voters ask? Well, that’s where Parsons Brinckerhoff comes in. The firm is identifying projects and, for now at least, will make recommendations.

❖ ❖ ❖

Go Hillsborough backers have insisted the public will know exactly where the money is going.

Critics say it’s fishy.

The county has a lot invested in Go Hillsborough. Officials have been attending transportation workshops all around the county for months, and more are planned.

They put large amounts of political and emotional capital in the project. The future of the county is at stake. Pulling the plug would be extraordinarily difficult.

They may have to do it anyway.

Officials may have done everything by the book, but a lot of times that doesn’t matter. When this much money is involved and people start screaming foul play, things tend to end badly.

Commissioner Murman mentioned in this Tampa Tribune article on Go Hillsborough:

POLITICS

Tampa council vote hurts county transportation push

BY CHRISTOPHER O’DONNELL
Tribune staff 
Published: September 17, 2015   |   Updated: September 17, 2015 at 09:48 PM

TAMPA — The Go Hillsborough transportation initiative suffered another black eye Thursday as the Tampa City Council voted to suspend a contract with an engineering firm while an audit is conducted into how the company received a lucrative $1.3 million contract with Hillsborough County.

The move may require canceling future Go Hillsborough outreach meetings scheduled in Tampa.

Hillsborough County commissioners asked for the audit Wednesday after a WTSP 10 News TV report questioned whether Tampa public relations consultant Beth Leytham influenced the county in its choice of Parsons Brinckerhoff for the Go Hillsborough public outreach effort. Leytham’s public relations firm was later hired by Parsons Brinckerhoff to do communications and marketing on the project.

In the wake of that move, council members voted unanimously Thursday for city attorneys to put on hold the city’s $75,000 contract with Parsons Brinckerhoff. The council approved the contract earlier this month and the city staff has yet to finalize it.

The money was the city’s contribution toward another round of public outreach for the transportation initiative, which is expected to go to a countywide referendum in 2016.

“Obviously we cannot speculate what the results of that audit is,” said Councilwoman Lisa Montelione. “We need to put the brakes on this until after the audit report is returned to the county.”

Under the contract, the engineering firm was scheduled to hold another 22 public input meetings and to provide an update on the costs of transportation projects in the city’s 10-year plan.

Plant City and Temple Terrace were also asked to chip in $5,000 each toward the $350,000 cost of additional public outreach.

County Administrator Mike Merrill said the council’s decision will not stop Go Hillsborough from moving forward. The county is planning to continue with its public outreach efforts.

“What will happen more than likely is they will have to cancel all the outreach meetings that were scheduled in the city of Tampa,” Merrill said.

Councilman Mike Suarez, who serves on the county’s Transportation Policy Leadership Group, said the city should have signed an agreement with the county and paid them since the county was the agency that contracted with Parsons Brinckerhoff.

“It should never have been a separate contract between us and Parsons,” Suarez said.

Leytham’s firm, The Leytham Group, was in line to get $187,000 for its work on behalf of Parsons Brinckerhoff. That included $32,000 from the city contract.

Known as a well-connected consultant, Leytham has close ties to public officials including Tampa Mayor Bob Buckhorn and County Commissioners Ken Hagan and Sandy Murman.

Parsons Brinckerhoff has been one of Leytham’s clients for several years. She told the Tribune on Wednesday that she did not lobby on behalf of Parsons Brinckerhoff and that her firm was only hired after the contract was awarded.

Merrill said the process to hire Parsons Brinckerhoff has already been through one audit and also a legal review.

“The county attorney and auditor both independently concluded the procurement was done properly according to process,” he said.

Commissioner Murman quoted in this 10 News article on reviewing the selection process for GO Hillsborough:

Hillsborough orders review after 10 News investigation

Noah Pransky, WTSP

6:09 a.m. EDT September 17, 2015

TAMPA, Florida – Hillsborough County commissioners Wednesday ordered an independent auditor to review the process the county used to choose a controversial team for its transportation outreach, now known as “Go Hillsborough.”

The action comes 36 hours after 10 Investigates exposed numerous questions about the behind-the-scenes influence of one member of the outreach team, Beth Leytham, who also happened to be a political adviser to at least one commissioner.  Leytham texted County Administrator Mike Merrill during the procurement process to suggest several of her competitors not get considered for the job.

“It’s important that we get an independent review of that (Go Hillsborough) procurement,” said Commissioner Kevin Beckner, “and restore the trust and confidence that our community expects of us.”

A referendum in 2016 would propose raising the county’s sales tax by either a half-cent or full-cent in order to pay for billions of dollars in road construction and transit, potentially including light rail.

But Beckner — and other commissioners — said they were concerned their hard work could get derailed just as Greenlight Pinellas did last year by a series of missteps.

“(Greelight’s) process was attacked; their people were attacked; there was a lack of trust and integrity,” said Beckner.

Commissioner Al Higginbotham suggested the county should distance itself from the engineering firm associated with the questionable contract, Parsons Brinckerhoff, saying the firm had become “a distraction.” While other commissioners said an independent audit would be a good first step.

“I think at this juncture,” said Commissioner Victor Crist, “what we need to do is focus on re-establishing the trust and credibility.”

Commission Chair Sandy Murman, who was mentioned in Monday’s 10 Investigates report as a friend and associate of Leytham, suggested the county may want to call an end to the outreach portion of the process.

Recent community meetings have been sparsely attended, with just 600 total participants attending 30 Go Hillsborough events — an average of 20 constituents per event. This round of meetings — 54 in all — cost $350,000 and are funded by the county, cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City, as well as the Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority.

“Can we just accelerate the process?” Murman asked.  “We (need to) show people that we’re trying to solve a problem (and) get out from under this cloud and solve our transportation issues.”

But County Administrator Mike Merrill said the process was nearly complete and the contractor was due to present its findings, polling data, and suggested referendum plan to the commission on Nov. 5.

“We all know this was a legally-procured initiative,” said Commissioner Ken Hagan, defending the process as well as Leytham, who also volunteers as his campaign spokesperson.  “I fully support the audit, I know what it will come back and say…(but) transparency is of the utmost importance.

“The (critics) opposing this are using our contractor as a basis to obfuscate the issue at-hand, which is…to improve our transportation network.”

But one of those critics told commission Wednesday that a bad process can lead to a bad product.

“Please stop the Go Hillsborough process now,” said Sharon Calvert, co-founder of the Hillsborough County Tea Party, adding the county should demand a refund from public outreach contractors Parsons Brinckerhoff and The Leytham Group.

Calvert, who first pushed for an independent audit of the Go Hillsborough procurement nearly a year ago, said she was happy commissioners ordered a new look at the contract process, but was discouraged it may be left to the same two employees – county attorney Chip Fletcher and auditor Peggy Caskey – who were involved in the preliminary review earlier this year and found no need to investigate further.

However, the review simply aimed to find out whether the procurement met the letter of the law.  It did not examine whether the county or commissioners were completely transparent, whether Leytham was improperly lobbying on behalf of her client, or whether there was any preferential treatment given to the Parsons/Leytham team.

Commissioner Murman quoted in this Tampa Bay Times article on attracting corporate HQs:

Hillsborough faces hurdles luring big corporations

• Steve Contorno, Times Staff Writer

Wednesday, September 16, 2015 9:04pm

TAMPA — Local leaders often paint Hillsborough County as a sun-drenched, low-tax, low-regulation paradise for businesses looking to relocate.

But on Wednesday, Rick Homans, president and CEO of the Tampa Hills­borough Economic Development Corp., also bluntly described what’s holding the region back as it seeks to lure a major corporate headquarters that would transform the area.

In a presentation to Hillsborough County commissioners about corporate recruitment efforts, Homans said he hears three concerns from CEOs about the Tampa market.

The first should come as no surprise: transportation. It’s an issue the county has wrestled with for years and is hoping to address with the Go Hillsborough transit initiative.

But the other two roadblocks are discussed less publicly. One is a lack of “Class A” office space, meaning at least 100,000 square feet with the modern amenities a Fortune 500 company would expect in a new headquarters.

Larry Richey, senior managing director for commercial real estate broker Cushman & Wakefield’s Central and North Florida offices, said Tampa has just two available spaces of more than 100,000 square feet.

The low vacancy rate for Class A office space is a good sign that Tampa is retaining the corporations already here, Richey said. But it makes it difficult to recruit if an out-of-state company is looking to move fast.

But the outlook isn’t all bleak.

“Here’s the good news: Headquarter moves don’t happen quickly,” he said. “It’s very politically charged, financially charged, client-centric charged, and it’s not often they make those decisions and move in 12 months.”

Richey said a large office building could rise within two years in downtown Tampa and 18 months in the suburbs. That would meet the time frame for a large corporate headquarters move.

Tampa Bay Lightning owner Jeff Vinik is considering building Class A office space in his $1 billion development near downtown with the expectation that someone will fill it.

Ali Glisson, a spokeswoman for Vinik’s Strategic Property Partners, said the company “recognizes Tampa needs more Class A space to attract the types of companies we plan to attract, and that is very likely what we would build within the district.”

The third concern that CEOs have of Tampa is fear of being, as Homans put it, “too much of a pioneer.” There’s trepidation in being the new kid on the block — or the only kid.

“Some of them might want to be in a community that has a number of different headquarters,” he said, “where there’s ability to make lateral moves.”

While an obstacle, regional leaders say it validates the strategy of focusing on bagging one big corporate headquarters to get the ball rolling.

“We know that a corporate headquarters will put us on the map,” Commissioner Sandy Murman said, “that it will give us the leverage we need to bring in the spinoff effect.”