Parsons Contract is Risky Business

Where's there is smoke, there is fire. The schizophrenia of the Go Hillsborough debacle continues.

Last Wednesday the county commissioners decided Wednesday to audit how Parsons was handed a million dollar blank check via an umbrella miscellaneous engineering contract. 

The county commission should have voted to shut down or at least suspend Go Hillsborough then. However, County Administrator Mike Merrill, acting in his new role as an unelected County Mayor, stepped in and told them not to. Hmm....Who's in charge?

Suddenly, County Administrator Mike Merrill is sending a letter to Sheriff Gee to investigate the Parsons contract as 10 Investigates Noah Pransky reported earlier this week:

Hillsborough County administrator Mike Merrill has asked Sheriff David Gee to provide a review of the county's Go Hillsborough procurement following a 10 Investigates report that raised questions about the behind-the-scenes influence of a well-connected consultant. Merrill also suspended work on the transportation project's outreach "until a satisfactory resolution can be reached."

To be totally independent, FDLE should do the investigation and the investigation should not be done by anyone local or who is funded by the county commissioners.

An investigation of the Parsons contract must at least go back to January 2014 when suddenly County Administrator Mike Merrill took over responsibility for the transportation initiative from the facilitator Herb Marlowe. With this new responsibility, Merrill was put in a prime position to be able to direct contracts for this effort. Merrill is also responsible for any financing or bonding of any boatload of new tax dollars. Lots of power in having dual responsibility as County Administrator and also responsibility for the county's critical transportation initiative to be able direct an outcome, perhaps already decided.....

Remember it was County Administrator Mike Merrill who proposed last year after he took over the transportation initiative, that the governing Board of our transit agency, HART, be taken over by all electeds. Can you say PSTA?

We asked when the county commission voted in the Sunshine directing Merrill to takeover responsibility for the transportation initiative. His responsibilities changed and Merrill had to hire numerous high level staff to cover his day job while he focused on the transportation initiative. To date, we have not received an answer.

A full investigation should go back to March 2013 when the BOCC created the Transportation Policy Leadership Group. We wrote about a circular money trail surrounding Go Hillsborough here. 

An independent investigation must review any and all communications and documents of anyone associated with the transportation initiative and Go Hillsborough, including emails, cell phone messages, text messages, social media messages, memos. We cannot leave it up to the owner of the cell phone to determine if there were messages involved regarding this entire debacle. That sounds eerily familiar to the Hillary Clinton server scandal.

Complaints, questions and public records request began as soon as the County handed Parsons Brinckerhoff the million dollar no bid contract September 5, 2014. Unfortunately, County staff and the electeds refused to take these questions, comments and complaints seriously and address them early on. Now it's a year later and we have this big mess.

The intent of the Consultant's Competitive Negotiations Act (CCNA) procurement process, which is how Parsons was awarded the Go Hillsborough campaign work, is for general and civil engineering services, governed under Florida Statute 287.055.

Florida Statute 287.055 states:

287.055 Acquisition of professional architectural, engineering, landscape architectural, or surveying and mapping services; definitions; procedures; contingent fees prohibited; penalties.—(1) SHORT TITLE.—This section shall be known as the “Consultants’ Competitive Negotiation Act.”
(2) DEFINITIONS.—For purposes of this section:(a) “Professional services” means those services within the scope of the practice of architecture, professional engineering, landscape architecture, or registered surveying and mapping, as defined by the laws of the state, or those performed by any architect, professional engineer, landscape architect, or registered surveyor and mapper in connection with his or her professional employment or practice.

Where is the precedence of any other county in the state of Florida using a CCNA umbrella "Miscellaneous Engineering Services" contract to procure PR, marketing, electioneering and campaign work to push a sales tax hike referendum? 

Go Hillsborough was campaign work from the get go. We know Leytham was involved from the start confirmed by her text message dated October 1, 2014 as reported by Pransky's 10 Investigates report to deputy county administrator Lucia Garsys. Why would a PR person be telling the County how to answer questions about the Parsons procurement process that they, the county, used? 

Text message from Beth Leytham to
deputy county administrator Lucis Garsys on 10/1/2014

When did all the county commissioners know Leytham was part of the deal with Parsons? When did County Attorney Chip Fletcher know Leytham was part of the deal with Parsons? When did Mayor Buckhorn know Leytham was part of the deal with Parsons? 

Who knew what when?

In October 2014, Beth Leytham politicized this work effort as she began scheduling November focus groups, micro-targeting voters most likely to oppose a sales tax increase. This occurred before Parsons Brinckerhoff ever presented to the Policy Leadership Group at their October meeting. Parsons, of course, did not include in their public presentation that their PR sidekick was already doing electioneering and campaign work with your tax dollars.

By November 2014, Beth Leytham had already hijacked the name "Go Hillsborough" from Connect Tampa Bay, our local transit lobbyist. Connect Tampa Bay's plan presented to the public in January 2014 for a 1% sales tax hike was called "Go Hillsborough", as reported then by the Tribune:

On Thursday night, Connect Tampa Bay rolled out its vision of what a new transportation system should look like and how to pay for it, details that county commissioners and the county's three mayors are still discussing.

The group's plan, called “Go Hillsborough,” advocates a 1 cent sales tax increase that would raise $204 million annually in today's dollars.

Leytham has ties to Kevin Thurman, the Executive Director of Connect Tampa Bay, who presented their plan. Thurman is also a political consultant who does not disclose who his clients are. Thurman has been the Tribune's go to person too often on Go Hillsborough.  We now know the very cozy relationship Leytham has with the Tribune editorial board of which the Tribune has never disclosed. 

Thurman has leaked information throughout this initiative including what we posted here in May. It was the county, and either County Administrator Mike Merrill, himself or his staff, who handed poll information to Thurman. We understand Thurman found out about the poll information through Mayor Buckhorn's office.
(Side note when we asked the county for a copy of the AEComm transit assessment report last May under similar circumstances, we were denied a copy until later.)

After speaking with Eric Johnson at county center, the Eye found out it wasn't the county who was publicizing the results of their poll today. It wasn't the county who handed the results to Salinero. It wasn't even Salinero of the Tribune asking the county for the poll results. We are told the county had planned to publicize the results at next weeks Transportation Policy Leadership Group meeting. 

It was Kevin Thurman, a paid lobbyist as Executive Director of the pro transit group Connect Tampa Bay, who requested the poll results from the county. It was Kevin Thurman who handed the results off to Mike Salinero. Since that information was not pointed out in Salinero's article, readers probably thought Salinero got the poll results directly from the county or Transportation Policy Leadership Group. We wonder how the Transportation Policy Leadership Group must feel about a poll they sanctioned being released to the media before they have had a chance to review and comment on the results.

Taxpayers are paying Leytham hundreds of thousands of dollars and she has to hijack the name of the local transit lobbyists plan....Makes one wonder who created that name for Connect Tampa Bay to begin with.....

A Public Records Request from the county confirmed that Parsons Brinckerhoff provided NO Engineer of Record for the Go Hillsborough work and there are NO signed and sealed engineering documents resulting from their work done for the Go Hillsborough initiative. Statue 287.055 was never intended to enable engineering firms to launder hundreds of thousands of dollars to politically well connected PR firms to do marketing and campaign work to put sales tax hikes on the ballot.

Back to how Parsons was handed their million dollar taxpayer funded blank check.....

Parsons Brinckerhoff's umbrella CCNA contract for "Miscellaneous Engineering Services" was one of numerous engineering firms initially awarded these contracts in June 2012. At a June 2014 BOCC meeting, Parsons CCNA contract was extended for 2 more years, conveniently 2 months before the August 2014 PLG meeting where suddenly they voted to hire a so-called transportation expert for public engagement and specifically stated do NOT hire a PR firm to do it.

Interesting timing too, Bob Clifford, resigned as Executive Director of TBARTA last May 2014 and immediately went to work for Parsons Brinckerhoff in June 2014. Clifford sat in the audience at the August PLG meeting where they voted to hire a so-called "transportation expert" to do public engagement. What did he know and when?

Find Parsons umbrella CCNA contract here. 

This is how Parsons got awarded this $1.35 million boondoggle contract without the county commissioners ever having to originally vote on the contract award. Work orders were used against an umbrella contract to simply keep increasing the cost of this effort from less than $500K to a million dollars to now $1.35 Million. 

Using the CCNA umbrella contract enabled Parsons to immediately subcontract PR and campaign work to Beth Leytham - no transparent bid, no RFP, no requirements.

In Noah Pransky's 10 Investigates report interview with Leytham, she admits the Parsons effort is about getting another transportation referendum on the ballot and then the effort gets handed off to a private advocacy campaign or lobbying group that supports it to advocate for it. 

Hmmm. That advocacy campaign would be another lucrative opportunity for a politically well connected PR firm....

According to Pransky's report, Leytham texted County Administrator Mike Merrill on August 19, 2014, in what appears to be an effort to steer the public engagement work to her transportation client Parsons Brinckerhoff. We assume she knew that when that occurred she would get her piece of the huge taxpayer funded pie and she would be the real orchestrator of the campaign. 

June and July 2014 PLG meetings were cancelled. Merrill stated at the May 2014 Policy Leadership Group (PLG) meeting that transit projects would be publicly presented at the June PLG meeting. That NEVER happened and those presentations never occurred. Why?

Remember Mayor Buckhorn's comment at the May 2014 PLG meeting was that rail was part of the plan and everyone knew it......

Suddenly when the PLG reconvened in August 2014 the PLG was voting to hire a "transportation expert" to do public engagement - at Merrill's request. 

What was going on behind the scenes between May and August 2014 that caused the PLG to forego publicly discussing transit projects but all of a sudden voting to hand this effort off to a third party?

The text message below from Pransky's report from Leytham to Merrill was a week AFTER the August 12, 2014 PLG meeting where the PLG voted to hire a "transportation expert" to do public engagement. Not one county commissioner or PLG member mentioned or questioned at the August PLG meeting what the cost of this effort would be. Why? Were they told behind the scenes and did not want to publicly discuss? Was the information in this text message below from Leytham to Merrill also given to the county commissioners? It mentions a cost of $1.2 million....

Leytham would never have sent that text message without her knowing full well that the end result of this so-called public engagement was another sales tax referendum. That was baked in from the start.

Go Hillsborough was always a marketing campaign for another huge 30 year tax hike referendum that captures rich voter information and contact information - all at taxpayer expense.

That answers the question why the County awarded a scope of work to Parsons Brinckerhoff titled "Hillsborough County Transportation REFERENDUM Support". It's PR, marketing and campaign work to push another referendum not engineering work. County Administrator Mike Merrill cannot feign ignorance on how this was awarded to Parsons because we know Leytham texted him about it. Who else did Leytham text?

County awarded Parsons work titled "Hillsborough County
Transportation REFERENDUM Support"

That's why for a million taxpayer bucks in June the Parsons/Leytham/Merrill team proposed a huge 30 year tax hike before we ever got a plan. Propose the tax then figure out what it will pay for - sound familiar?

Professional engineering work does not include electioneering/campaign work and certainly does not include micro-targeting voters. This campaign has been flawed and very sloppy. It appears there are violations of the CCNA contract itself, perhaps because it was being run by a PR firm not an engineering firm. Why did "they" think they could get away with it?  Because they have before? We have posted previously on the Eye about many of these issues.

• Leytham launched the GoHillsborough.org website (domain owned by ad agency Chappell-Roberts not the County), at taxpayer expense of course, in February without any disclaimers that information provided to or on that website was subject to public records access. She did the same thing with the $1.2 million federal HUD grant the city of Tampa received and steered to Parsons/Letham for InVision Tampa. It took about two weeks after raising the issue with county staff and county commissioners that the disclaimers were finally added to the Go Hillsborough website.

• Go Hillsborough refused to comply with my Statute 119 Public Records Request for copies of documents related to activities conducted at taxpayer expense until the media, Channel 10's Mike Deeson also requested them as I posted here. Section 10.1 of the CCNA contract states that Parsons (and any subcontractors) must comply with all federal, state and local laws, rules and regulations. That would include our Sunshine laws and complying with public records request from anyone, not just the media.

• Go Hillsborough displays information making claims without any source or source data citations. Engineers do not do that, PR marketing firms do.

• Go Hillsborough displays at their meetings pictures of LA traffic insinuating it is Hillsborough County. Engineering firms do not do that, PR marketing firms do.

• Go Hillsborough was deceptive about the information they provided the public.

• Section 16.1 of the CCNA contract states that Parsons shall make no statements, press releases or public releases concerning the contract or its subject matter without first notifying the County and securing its prior consent in writing. On August 17, 2015, conveniently on the same day Go Hillsborough started their 2nd round of meetings costing taxpayers $350K, Leytham sent out a Go Hillsborough Press Release stating Go Hillsborough was bringing back the 1% sales tax hike. I requested on September 9 via a Public Records Request a copy of the written consent from the county related to approving this press release. To date I have received no response. 

Taxpayers are paying hefty Parsons engineering consulting rates but what we got was a marketing and electioneering campaign. This work should NEVER have been procured under the CCNA umbrella professional engineering services procurement process.

And taxpayers should be very concerned because taxpayers must be protected from the use of taxpayer monies being used against the taxpayer.

Does a CCNA contract that is intended for procuring general and civil engineering services, not campaign work, protect taxpayers? Does an umbrella miscellaneous engineering contract include any contractual/legal protections that prevent Parsons, Leytham or any other subcontractors, ad agency Chappell-Roberts, Jacobs Engineering or anyone else subcontracted, from handing over rich voter information, contact information or other rich information they gathered about or from Go Hillsborough participants, obtained all at taxpayer expense, to anyone? What prevents any of these people from handing over rich information to a private advocacy campaign, another lobbying organization or even a candidate who supports a sales tax referendum placed on the ballot?

Does the county have all the information and data taxpayers paid to gather?

Another question that must be answered is exactly who all has received taxpayer money from the Parsons contract. We know Leytham subcontracted to Chappell-Roberts, were there others? Who has had access to all the data and information gathered at taxpayer expense? Any candidates? Kevin Thurman? Connect Tampa Bay? (Brandie Miklus who co-founded Connect Tampa Bay works for Parsons subcontractor Jacobs Engineering) 

The Parsons CCNA contract, never intended to be used for broad public engagement, PR and marketing campaign to put a referendum on the ballot, does not appear to protect taxpayers.

Taxpayers are at risk.

Time for the County to shut down Go Hillsborough now. 

Time for the County to receive in writing from Parsons that they or any of their subcontractors or sub-subcontractors (name them all) will NOT hand any information gathered at taxpayer expense to anyone other than the County - who paid for the effort, should own all the data gathered and it should be subject to public records access.

Because this Parsons contract is risky business to taxpayers.

Go Hillsborough Violates Sunshine Laws: Time to Shut It Down!

The EyeonTampaBay continues to post about Go Hillsborough's lack of transparency.

The latest outrage is my attempt since April to get detailed information regarding activities Go Hillsborough conducted at taxpayer expense. I began asking for the focus group information on April 26, 2015, at the same time I asked for the poll details. I submitted follow up emails that included cc'ing County Administrator Mike Merrill who hired the Parsons Brinckerhoff/Beth Leytham team. Merrill never responded.

An email requesting details for activities conducted
by taxpayer fundedGoHillsborough

How did I learn of the focus groups, market analysis and polling being done by Leytham? I got the invoices submitted to the county from Parsons Brinckerhoff. I did not trust how the cronies running the Go Hillsborough campaign would use our tax dollars. All these activities were right there on the invoices that the county was paying.

Parsons Brinckerhoff invoice includes
PR lobbyist Beth Leytham charges

I contacted County staff numerous times, contacted Go Hillsborough directly and submitted Statute 119 Public Records Requests for the focus group details. Same as with the poll details, the County, Leytham, and I assume Parsons, all stonewalled or ignored me. No one associated with Go Hillsborough even acknowledged they received my request. Go Hillsborough apparently thinks they are "above" having to provide any details to a citizen Jane taxpayer who asks. Are the Go Hillsborough cronies that arrogant that they forget or simply do not care that it's the taxpayers footing "their" bill.

It was odd that County staff kept telling me they did not have the information as if that would make me go away.  Since I had the invoices I responded back that the County paid for these activities so how could they not know what they paid for. That's another disturbing thought. Certainly the County's Accounts Payable process has controls in place to ensure the county actually has what is being paid for.

The County should have all the details related to activities conducted at county taxpayer expense, especially for an important transportation initiative. These details must be part of the public records readily available to the public via Statute 119 public records requests.

I brought this non-compliance issue up with some of the County Commissioners, that I was not being given the information I requested. I was trying to understand how the county commissioners can be pursuing multi-BILLION dollar decisions when they don't even have all the information to make these decisions. 

Why would the county and county commissioners only be given specifically selected "filtered" information or a filtered finished work product? If the county had performed all these activities, they would have the details. Outsourcing the work to consultants and contractors does not mean our Sunshine laws are null and void. The county cannot wash their hands of information the public has a right to see and access.

Why weren't our county commissioners asking for this information? While we understand the commissioners may not be able to read every single detailed piece of information, they all have staff to help them. The county commissioners created this transportation initiative. They put it out there front and center. Yet they weren't curious enough to ask questions. That is astoundingly disturbing. Are other big decisions  being made by them based on selected "filtered" information?

Knowing that Parsons and County Administrator Mike Merrill planned to present their proposal(s) at the June 11, 2015 PLG meeting, I wanted the detailed poll and focus group information PRIOR to that meeting. Instead, Leytham and the County preferred to stonewall me.

Parsons and Merrill proposed another huge 30 year $3.5 Billion sales tax hike at the June 11 PLG meting. If the county did not have the details behind the work product Parsons handed to the PLG as they announced a multi-BILLION dollar proposal on June 11, that is shameful! 

I finally got some of the focus group information Thursday, July 30th, over 3 months from when I originally asked for information.  Same as with the polling details I requested, it took a media request by Channel 10 Investigative Reporter Mike Deeson for Leytham and the County to ante up some detailed information about activities paid for by county taxpayers. As Channel 10's Deeson reported Thursday:

After repeated public record requests, Hillsborough County required the consultant on the Go Hillsborough transportation initiative to release information on the focus groups taxpayers funded.

It is obvious the County, Parsons and Leytham's intent was to not hand over any details of what they were doing with our tax dollars prior to the huge sales tax hike proposal on June 11th.  Is that using tax dollars against the taxpayer? Isn't that illegal?

Why did it take a media request to the county for the county to finally require the politically well connected PR lobbyist Beth Leytham to release the information requested?

This is wrong and it is outrageous!

Public Records Request from ANY citizen must be taken as seriously as those requested by the media. Go Hillsborough and the County apparently think otherwise.

I am not surprised because I have been fighting a transparency battle with the Go Hillsborough campaign since they first launched. 

Back in February when Go Hillsborough first launched, I found out that a crony ad agency, Chappell-Roberts, owns the GoHillsborough.org website. I noticed the website launched without any of the required disclaimers that information on that website is subject to public access.

I immediately contacted the County and some county commissioners at that time. I spoke with the county's new Communication's Director, Liana Lopez. (interesting the timing of the county hiring a new communications director.....just as this campaign was launching...for another referendum...)

I not only asked Lopez that the disclaimers be added to the website (they were) but I also asked her who owns all the data gathered and assimilated by the taxpayer funded GoHillsborough campaign since the county did not own the GoHillsboroug.org domain name. Lopez confirmed with me that the county owns all the data. Also on that call with myself and Lopez was an IT person the county had recently hired. Apparently the county was hiring some new IT folks to work on data being transferred from Go Hillsborough over into the county domain.

I raised my concern with Lopez, as I did with others including some county commissioners at that time, about the county not owning the GoHillsborough.org domain name. My concern regarding how this campaign was unfolding went back to there never was a transparent bid or RFP or even any requirements documented from the county for this effort. The county simply directed work orders to Parsons Brinckerhoff under an umbrella "Miscellaneous Engineering Services" contract. How would the county ensure they get all the data the county should own for all the activities conducted by the taxpayer funded Go Hillsborough campaign? 

Back in February I was assured by Lopez that the county owned all the data and the county would get all the data from the Go Hillsborough campaign.

Obviously that is not the case.

The other issue I raised with the County and Lopez was whether there was a document between the county and the consultant/contractors that specifically states the county owns all the data and prevents the consultant/contractors from handing over or selling any or all of the rich information they gathered at taxpayer expense to anyone else, e.g. a private sector advocacy campaign. To my knowledge, there is no such document so it appears the consultant/contractors could hand over the rich cache of data they gathered  at taxpayer expense to the highest bidder or to the cause they support.

We will point out once again that he county has gotten themselves into this precarious position because they never used a transparent process up front, no bid, no RFP, no requirements. The county's rules of engagement with Parsons Brinckerhoff was simply handing them a million dollar taxpayer blank check.

As we have documented, the taxpayer funded Go Hillsborough has a systemic transparency problem. The County or GoHillsborough or a crony PR lobbyist cannot refuse to comply with Public Records Requests from the general public. This is a legal issue and the non-compliance must stop.

Better yet, someone(s) at County Center needs to be held accountable and responsible for the mess the county has created with taxpayer monies. Someone(s) need to shut down Go Hillsborough now. 

The County Commissioners need to stop ANY further county tax dollars from going to Parsons Brinckerhoff, Beth Leytham or anyone else associated with Go Hillsborough.

Next up we will look at the Focus Groups and the information collected....because there are serious questions about these activities.

Follow the GoHillsborough Circular Money Trail

We're currently watching the "Clinton Cash" scandal unfold about the Clinton Foundation. The Clinton Foundation looks like it was set up as a global lobbying firm to personally benefit the Clintons, with a little bit of charity, about 15% of the donations, thrown in. While Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton was in her powerful and influential Secretary of State position, there's a timeline of President Clinton's speaking fees escalating and lots of money exchanging hands, some of it very questionable, the timing questionable and some of the people involved very questionable. 

Are we getting numb, annoyed, agitated, frustrated or angry when we continue to see money buying access and influence with those in powerful or elected positions.

Closer to home let's look at the money trail of those associated with the GoHillsborough campaign. We previously posted here that the cronies were put in charge of the million dollar taxpayer funded public engagement effort when it was handed over via a no-bid contract to Parsons Brinckerhoff. 

Let's go back in time to 2010. The pro rail PAC Moving Hillsborough Forward (MHF) was created BEFORE the commissioners put it on the ballot in a 5-2 vote May 13, 2010. SunTrust bank was so sure it would get on the ballot they donated $50K as seed money to MHF on March 26, 2010. Deanne Roberts of Chappell-Roberts ad agency was so sure it would get on the ballot she donated $500 on April 15, 2010. Hmmm...

SunTrust and Deanne Roberts (of Chappell-Roberts) donate to MHF PAC
 before rail referendum is on ballot in 2010

Who were some other donors to MHF?

Parsons, Leytham and Roberts all donors to
Moving Hillsborough Forward pro rail PAC 

Parsons Brinckerhoff, Beth Leytham, Chappell-Roberts, Jacobs Engineering all donated, some very substantially, to the Moving Hillsborough Forward pro rail PAC. They are now all getting YOUR tax dollars to run the GoHillsborough campaign.

Commissioner Hagan stated he voted to put the 2010 referendum on the ballot because he wanted the people to vote on the issue. They did by overwhelmingly voting NO. Hagan's ready to put another sales tax referendum on the 2016 ballot - as we reported here.  Hagan has even indicated he may exploit a term limit loophole to jump back into his District 2 seat to enable him the opportunity to remain a county commissioner until 2024.

While anyone can contribute to any candidates race they choose, we do take note of who the very first donors to Commissioner Hagan's 2014 re-election race were when he filed to run again for his countywide seat in February 2013.

Hagan First day donors

The very first day of donations reported was 2/26/2013 and the very first donor, after Hagan himself, was PR consultant Beth Leytham. In fact, she donated twice in one day, as an individual and from her business. Leytham is getting almost $300K of our tax dollars via the million dollars the county handed to Parsons Brinckerhoff for GoHillsborough.

The rest of the cronies running the GoHillsborough campaign also donated on that very first day, February 26, 2013, to Hagan's re-election campaign:

• George Walton, who is leading the Parsons Brinckerhoff public engagement effort
• Parsons Brinkcerhoff who got the million dollar no bid contract to do the public engagement work
• Chappell-Roberts, the ad agency with close ties to special interest Tampa Bay Partnership, owns the GoHillsborough.org webite and was engaged by Leytham to do work for the GoHillsborough campaign.

How coincidental is that? And Hagan and his war chest ran unopposed in 2014.

Now all of these donors are directly involved with our county's million dollar taxpayer funded public engagement effort. Hmmm....

At the March 20, 2013 BOCC meeting, the county commissioned unanimously voted to form a Transportation Policy Leadership Group. The wording of the motion approved that day:

To request the County Administrator to negotiate a contract with the strategic planning consultant for services related to the formation of a policy group and  to assist in preparing and facilitating a series of workshops for this group to develop a transportation strategy which will be integrated into the Boards strategic plan, economic development/redevelopment areas and recommendations 1-10 of the Economic Prosperity Stakeholder Committee.

How did the above motion to have a series of workshops to develop a transportation strategy that would be integrated into the county's strategic plan, turn into a million dollar taxpayer funded GoHillsborough campaign? 

Follow the money. The GoHillsborough campaign is spreading our tax dollars around to cronies.

I got a copy of the Parsons Brinckerhoff invoices submitted to the county for payment. They include what Leytham, a subcontractor, invoiced Parsons. From October 2014 through January 2015, Leytham invoiced Parsons $168,805.76. 

Leytham invoice for PR work 

That's 60% of the $281K total she will be getting for her GoHillsborough work. Below is the breakdown of those costs. We heard Leytham was trying to state she was only getting $75K for her PR work. If she said that, obviously that's not true.

Breakdown of Leytham's PR costs
from Oct. 2014 thru Jan. 2015 (click to enlarge)

Leytham's being paid almost $74K for branding and creative design. We reported here that Leytham simply hijacked the GoHillsborough brand name from the transit lobbyists Connect Tampa Bay's plan of the same name they proposed last year. Hijacking a name is not creative, doesn't take much effort or should not cost much. The website is a standard template that doesn't have any cool or unusual attributes. We're paying $15K for Facebook ads that's resulted in about 2300 Likes on their Facebook page. Is that considered successful? GoHillsborough's twitter handle has under 250 followers and has tweeted a whopping 39 times. We're paying Leytham $80K for focus groups, market analysis and benchmarking polls. Where are the results of any of those activities and how are they being used in this campaign? Does this look more like an expensive taxpayer funded PR boondoggle?

Parsons Brinkcherhoff is known for getting referendums on the ballot, then donating heavily to the pro referendum special interests campaign and then benefiting by getting projects created by the sales tax largesse. Leytham is very closely associated with Commissioners Hagan and Mayor Buckhorn who are both members of the Transportation Policy Leadership Group.  She's a political insider who is now a taxpayer funded political insider with plenty of access. Leytham can now use her close relationships on the inside to lobby or pressure others to support another sales tax referendum - all on our taxpayer dime. If there's a referendum, Chappell-Roberts can just turn the GoHillsborough advertising campaign over to the Tampa Bay Partnership to run the private sector campaign again. This is a very cozy group of folks who have created a circular money trail.

Has the inside lobbying already begun? We don't know. But we do know Commissioner Hagan, Mayor Buckhorn and Commissioner Miller want another sales tax referendum in 2016. They want another big pot of your hard earned money before ANY plan(s) have been discussed, before we know what this new tax would pay for or before we know what the costs involved are. Must we have a referendum before we know what's in it? Sound eerily familiar?

Like the Clinton Cash, follow the GoHillsborough money trail. They are both circular.

GoHillsborough Fails in "Robust Outreach" So Hagan "Jumps the Shark" For Another Sales Tax Referendum

At Wednesday's Transportation Policy Leadership Group meeting, Commissioner Ken Hagan stated he is ready to pursue NOW putting a sales tax increase referendum on the 2016 Presidential election year ballot. According to today's Tribune article:

County Commissioner Ken Hagan told other members of the county’s Transportation Policy Leadership Group that he wants the group to make a final recommendation on projects and financing in June. The county commission could then begin taking steps for a referendum to be held in November 2016, he said. 

Hagan said he foresees the county commission taking a final vote in September or October to put a sales tax increase on the 2016 ballot. That will give business groups more than a year to plan and carry out a campaign to promote passage of the sales tax. No public money can be spent to promote a referendum.

Hagan's referendum comment at Wednesday's meeting was at the end of the meeting and took about only a couple minutes of the meeting with Commissioner Les Miller, the only other county commissioner who stated they agreed with Hagan. The bulk of the meeting was focused on the concern by the PLG members about the low participation at the public engagement meetings - remember it's costing taxpayers a million bucks. The Tampa Bay Times more accurately reported on what was discussed:

Despite having about 50 people at each meeting, on average, some members of the group wondered whether enough was being done to draw in all demographics and engage the community.

Since Commissioner Hagan cannot yet pursue his dream of a new baseball stadium in Hillsborough County, perhaps he wants attention for something else.

So did Commissioner Hagan "Jump the Shark"?

The public engagement meetings have not been completed. There's been no plans presented or discussed yet. There's been no due diligence or any discussion regarding all the funding options or what "needs" must be paid for versus the "wants" in our current county budget. There's been no official priorities set for the county budget. Should that $15 million soccer complex by nixed to help fund roads? Should the county stop funding lower priority items to fund transportation? Our county revenues are heading up so should those increased revenues go to fund roads? None of those discussions have taken place but Hagan is ready to march forward to put a sales tax referendum on the 2016 Presidential year election ballot. 

Should we be surprised? The scope of work handed to Parsons Brinckerhoff via no-bid from the county last September was titled "Hillsborough County Transportation Reference Support". Was that being prescient or simply always the plan?

Which business groups are lining up to support a referendum they know nothing about? Or do they know something the rest of us haven't been told? Is it the Tampa Bay Partnership and the Chambers of Commerce? Haven't they struck out at least 4 times supporting sales tax referendums in the Tampa Bay area? Chappell-Roberts, the ad agency closely associated with the Tampa Bay Partnership, owns the GoHillsborough website name. Politically well connected PR consultant Beth Leytham is getting paid almost $300K of our tax dollars to do PR work for GoHillsborough. We assume they both have access to all the GoHillsborough data, information and email addresses gathered at taxpayer expense. What an easy way for them to jump over to the private sector and help launch that business campaign Hagan references. They'll be able to make more money in support of a referendum they directly helped get on the ballot, at taxpayer expense. 

The GoHillsborough Campaign is in its last phase of community meetings and will conclude with a tele-townhall on May 21. We can only speculate why the participation rate has been low but that makes the cost of this effort even higher. However, here are some observations about this campaign.

I've attended a number of the public engagement meetings. One of the most discouraging things I noticed is that most of the county commissioners themselves weren't participating in these meetings. Commissioner Hagan has not been to one GoHillsborough meeting - but he already wants a referendum. 

The entire Policy Leadership Group effort, since it started in July 2013, never provided the ability for the general public to speak directly to the elected officials. The PLG meetings were held like workshops, no public comments could be made. When the previous public engagement effort was done from August 2013 through December 2013 that actually allowed public comment, the commissioners were specifically told to stay away.  And while we paid for that effort too, there was never any report or summary presented or anything public presented back to the PLG about those meetings. 

The format of the Parsons Brinckerhoff GoHillsborough campaign doesn't allow for public comments, except in writing on the comment forms. This entire PLG effort appears to have been organized around ensuring there's no direct communication between the elected officials, their constituents and the general public on this issue. Do you consider that odd? 

Ironically, when Parsons Brinckerhoff made their first report to the PLG last month after the first phase of meetings, George Walton of PB stated one of the feedbacks they received  was that the public wanted to speak to their elected officials. Unless the county commissioners actually showed up at any of the meetings, the public did not have any opportunity to engage or speak to the county commissioners. Walton invited the commissioners at the March PLG meeting to show up at the tele-townhalls. I've listened to both tele-townhalls and no county commissioner participated in them except for a recorded message from Commissioner Murman at the first one. We'd like to think that all the county commissioners would want to engage with the general public on this issue.

Regarding the issue of public participation, I am not aware of any goals or expectations set up front by the county regarding public participation. All we heard at PLG meetings was the need for "robust public outreach" but no one defined what that is. With the amount of tax dollars we're paying Parsons and PR consultant Beth Leytham, the county should have discussed upfront with Parsons and Leytham some estimate of the number of people they expected to reach and wanted to reach to participate in the public engagement effort. How do they actually measure success? They can't because no measuring stick was defined. 

As we noted, public participation was the big topic at Wednesday's PLG meeting. Bob Clifford of PB, reported that the community engagement was going "very well". Clifford's definition of "going well" is there's been 1400 participants over 26 meetings (an average of about 54 people per meeting), 1000 comments submitted, 2 tele-townhalls with over 12K attendees, 40 speaking engagements and over 2K Likes on the GoHillsborough Facebook page. The Tribune called this "a vigorous public outreach campaign". Do you?

Is that really considered a success and going well, especially for how much this effort is costing taxpayers? There seemed to be genuine concern from a number of PLG members at yesterday's meeting about whether this effort is reaching enough people. County Administrator Merrill stated that we're doing the "best we could with what we had" and that they would've needed a couple of million taxpayer dollars to do a full blown advertising campaign. Huh? Same old same old answer - I can do more just give me more money.... The intent of GoHillsborough wasn't to be an advertising campaign right? Or was it?

Commissioner Murman asked Clifford if there's been enough attendees participate that can justify the proposals that result or is there some formula regarding attendance that will justify the outcome? Clifford could only answer that they are getting consistent information. County Administrator Merrill stated it's the "quality" of the information not the quantity. What quality standard are they measuring against? Nobody knows. Since there were no requirements defined upfront, GoHillsborough can just make it up as they go along.

One of the biggest flaws of the GoHillsborough information gathering effort is it is NOT a data driven effort. It is an OPINION driven effort (and of course everyone who participates has one). The "options" buckets provided to give an opinion is very flawed. While there were numerous specific road option buckets from resurfacing to asset preservation to road widening to intersection improvements to ATMS (timing our lights); there was no such differentiating buckets for transit. Transit only included a big broad bucket for new/expanded transit routes, more frequencies and weekend service. 

What does new/expanded transit routes mean? Is it simply expanding our existing direct or express routes or expanding the MetroRapid BRT's? Or is it some form of new transit - managed bus toll lanes, dedicated lane, gold standard BRT or some other variation of BRT, streetcar, light rail, commuter rail, ferry service, monorail or something else? There is no way to accurately extrapolate from a big broad bucket for new/expanded transit routes to what kind of specific transit people actually meant selecting that option. It's as if GoHillsborough didn't want to give the public the ability to choose. Why not? Don't transit supporters, who keep advocating for more transportation "choices", want to be able to choose the specific mode of transit they prefer? 

That leads to another flaw - the use of the term "fixed guideways" on the maps shown at the meetings. According to the National Transit Database, the term "fixed guideways" is defined as:

Fixed Guideway (FG)A public transportation facility using and occupying: •   A separate right-of-way (ROW) or rail for the exclusive use of public transportation

To the general public "fixed guideways" implies fixed rail lines. There are fixed guideway transit routes reflected on the maps. However, nowhere in the meetings I attended was there any information about the AEComm transit assessment done last May. AEComm reported that Hillsborough County does not have the ridership to qualify for federal funds for high cost fixed guideways transit solutions such as rail or dedicated lane, gold standard BRT. They also stated that investments in transit should be done cautiously and prudently. In other words - invest in transit incrementally not boldly. That assessment was never publicly presented to the PLG. However, at the August PLG meeting it was stated that everyone should read it. The public can't read that assessment if they don't know it exists and don't have access to it. Taxpayers paid for that assessment. Why wasn't that assessment made available or at least a link provided to the assessment through the GoHillsborough campaign so the public could read it? Wasn't part of the GoHillsborough effort to educate the public? 

The current phase is starting to include some costs and some good information is provided regarding how much it costs per mile for road improvements or different types of transit. It is an eye opener to see how expensive transportation improvements actually are. However, additional cost-benefit information should be provided. The cost information that is missing is the cost per trip. We hope that Parsons provides cost per trip level of information when they provide their various recommended scenarios to the PLG. The cost per trip for a highly utilized asset, one that benefits many, is much lower than the cost per trip for an under utilized asset that benefits far fewer. That analysis should be included in how and where our tax dollars are spent.

Back to Thursday's Tribune article, they also reported

“I’ve consistently advocated over the past two years that we’ve had these PLG meetings that we have a measured and methodical approach,” Hagan told the group. “But I’ve got to tell you, I feel it’s time to bring this in for a landing.”

Advocating to march forward for another large pot of your tax dollars before that "methodical approach" has even been completed, before any plans have been presented, before any full discussion on what's to be funded has been done, before serious cost-benefit analysis has been done or before prioritizing our existing budget is not fair to the taxpayers. But it is the easy way out - don't make any of the tough, fiscal decisions of prioritizing our budget and looking at all funding options, just ask for a big pot more.

Perhaps one reason for low participation in the GoHillsborough campaign is that the million dollar taxpayer funded Parsons Brinckerhoff/Beth Leytham/Chappell-Roberts crony insiders "methodical approach" is simply cover for something that was already decided - the county wants another big pot of your money even before they know what to do with it. 

Does Commissioner Hagan "jumping the shark" simply confirm that? 

Before GoHillsborough there was InVision Tampa

The Parsons Brinckerhoff GoHillsborough transportation public engagement campaign is copying what was done for Invision Tampa in 2012. This is expected because at the October 21, 2014 Transportation Policy Leadership Group meeting it was stated Parsons Brinckerhoff would be modeling this effort after Invision Tampa.

We decided to look at InVision Tampa.

What is InVision Tampa? It began with the City of Tampa applying for a $1.2 million HUD-DOT-EPA Challenge Grant back in 2011 - when the City of Tampa thought HSR was coming. Information about Challenge Grants can be found here. These grants are to foster "sustainable communities" to support projects based on six "Livability" principles defined by HUD-DOT-EPA. Your federal tax dollars at work.

The City of Tampa awarded the InVision Tampa contract to the AECom team. AECom was the prime consultant of a team that included Parsons Brinckerhoff, Beth Leytham and Chappell-Roberts. Sound familiar?

According to its website, Invision Tampa was for

creating a master plan for Tampa’s Center City, spanning from downtown to Ybor City on the east, Armenia Avenue on the west and north along historic Nebraska Avenue to Hillsborough Avenue.

What did they do?

In November 2012, an InVision Tampa Issues and Opportunities Report was prepared by AECom. Executive summaries with lots of renderings of potential redevelopment opportunities can be found by clicking on the projects here. 

We could not find in the report how much this "Vision" would cost to actually implement or how it would be paid for. 

The report states about 2000 people participated in this public engagement effort. They held charrettes, I-townhalls and even had walking tours. They used social media with an Invision Tampa Facebook page, Twitter account and a Youtube channel. 

InVision Tampa even had a blog where we found these:

and also:

So cars are killing us and we're fat because Americans drive too much and we don't bicycle enough like in Europe. Hmm did someone have an agenda wanting to force us out of our cars coercively? Good luck!

George Walton of Parsons Brinckerhoff discussed transit. Walton is leading the Parsons GoHillsborough effort. He also led HART's Alternatives Analysis that recommended the two rail routes in the 2010 rail referendum that was overwhelmingly defeated.

Regarding transit opportunities, we found the following in their report:

• Very strong local belief that we need local transit to serve downtown core (business, cultural venues, tourism and residential)
• Easy, reliable transit that connects key cultural and employment destinations with places of residential density
• Reward non-auto trips, make it more attractive to take transit
• Transit Oriented Development, mixed use, higher density in the core
• With some specific ideas to:
• Use Metro-Rapid to better brand and serve the local population
•  Need easy, local circulator that serves the downtown core
•  Need future regional transit that gets to USF, Airport, Westshore and regionally to St. Pete, Beaches, etc. 
• Don't give up on High Speed Rail / Statewide Linkages

What is the "reward" for non-auto trips to make it more attractive to take transit? Free transit? More transit subsidies? Who's paying for the rewards? 

Transit-Oriented Development aka TOD is always a requirement for high cost transit corridors, especially light rail. TOD requires central planning regulations and often subsidies or incentives to coercively force densities to be built along the transit corridor. Charlotte is highlighted in the InVision Report and they created these regulated TOD Zoning Districts. 

Parsons Brinckerhoff has long been involved with, has led and been associated with the high cost rail and TOD efforts in Charlotte.

This team likes dot boards. InVision Tampa used them too. It must make folks think they are "doing" something.

InVision Tampa Dot Board

We did a DNS search to find out who registered the InVisionTampa.com website. It was Chappell-Roberts, the same ad agency that currently owns GoHillsborough.org.

Ad Agency Chappell-Roberts registered the InVisionTampa.com domain name

It appears that the domain name was transferred last year and now is owned by the City of Tampa.

Invisiontampa.com is now owned by the City of Tampa

There is a similarity to GoHillsborough. When GoHillsborough.org was launched in February, we found that Hillsborough County did not own the website.  We also noticed there were none of the normal disclaimers that information submitted was subject to our Sunshine laws and public records access. It took about two weeks before we had confirmation from the county's new Communications Director and a new IT person that the county did own the data and the disclaimers should be on the website. The disclaimers were finally added to the GoHillsborough site.

Any and all information submitted by this form or via email becomes a public record to the extent provided by law; records are being reviewed by any person desiring to review such records. Additionally, under Florida law, email addresses are also public records. If you do not want your email address released in response to a public records request, do not send electronic mail to this GOHillsborough.org. Instead, contact us through the comment line or in writing.

No such disclaimers are on the InVisionTampa.com website. Even today when the City of Tampa now owns the website, there are still no disclaimers that information submitted is subject to public records access. There are also no disclaimers on the InVisionTampa blog either. Why not? Is the information submitted subject to public records access?

At an InVision Tampa event called a Knowledge Exchange, the attendees were told not to be afraid of being an "edgy" city, whatever that means. The participants broke into those infamous small break out groups to discuss what Tampa MUST DO and MUST NOT DO over the next 15 years. 

As a result, word clouds were created. What Tampa Must Do over the next 15 years:

Word Cloud for what Tampa Must Do (click to enlarge)

Biggest letters are for "Invest in mass transit while teeny tiny words are for "make it easier to do business here". 

What Tampa Must NOT do over the next 15 years:

Word Cloud for what Tampa Must NOT Do (click to enlarge)

The biggest letters for what Tampa should not do over the next 15 years is "keep widening roads" and much smaller letters to "make it harder to do business here". 

So over the next 15 years Tampa must have mass transit but Tampa doesn't need to make it easier to do business aka make it easier to create jobs. Is that logical? 

The second Knowledge Exchange session about public spaces created this word cloud of what are the important emerging public realm needs

Word Cloud for Emerging Public Realm Needs

The largest letters are the need for better bike and pedestrian facilities and better public transportation. In teeny tiny letters is grocery store. Guess these folks don't like to eat. Or they don't like to cook and don't buy much groceries but instead prefer to take public transportation to their favorite wine bar. However, haven't we heard one big missing element for people who want to live in the center city is a grocery store?

We've heard GoHillsborough will be providing word clouds. We can't wait.

GoHillsborough will be providing an Issues and Opportunities report too. Hope it doesn't look like the one for InVision Tampa. We need a county plan to fund our roads NOW not years or decades from now.

InVision Tampa cost $1.2 million and GoHIllsborough is costing county taxpayers a million dollars. Both of these costly taxpayer funded efforts that include expensive dot boards and creating word clouds are led by many of the same people. It's a clique of politically well connected people who keep conveniently getting fed at the trough of the taxpayer.

Best practices used for consensus building activity states the facilitator of such activities should be "neutral". That should be especially important when these facilitation activities are being paid for with taxpayer dollars.

However, as we previously reported here, rail crony Parsons Brinckerhoff, political consultant Beth Leytham, the campaign PR consultant for rail cheerleader Mayor Buckhorn who is also closely associated with other local elected officials, and Chappell-Roberts, a close associate of the leader of the Tampa Bay rail cartel Tampa Bay Partnership, are anything but "neutral".

And City of Tampa: put some disclaimers on your website...