Legal but Ethical? Go Hillsborough's Highly Paid "Insider" Busybody

The Go Hillsborough law enforcement investigation report was released on the Monday afternoon of the day before our Tuesday Primary Election. That's a convenient way to change the media coverage……get it drowned out by our Primary Election coverage. 

All of the media reporting from the Tribune and the Times basically focused only on the 12 page summary from State Attorney Mark Ober. The Tribune/Times reporters, to my knowledge, have not read the almost 2000 page investigative report. They should. Only WTSP's Noah Pransky, who broke the story last fall, appears to have actually read through the details according to his latest reporting, The 3 most damning things in Go Hillsborough investigation.

Our local print media refuses to report on the details. Why? Because they are part of the "Insiders" and as economist Larry Summers once told Senator Elizabeth Warren: 

Outsiders could say what they want, he told her, but people on the inside don’t listen to them. 

Insiders get more access to push their ideas to powerful people.
“But insiders also understand one unbreakable rule: They don’t criticize other insiders,” Summers told Warren

Our local media, except for WTSP's Noah Pransky, made a conscious decision to be Insiders because it corroborates their own agenda for a sales tax hike and that end justifies any means for getting there. Shameful!

Most reporting also fails to include there are Ethics complaints being investigated by the Ethics Commission in Tallahassee. 

The big news (or not) is that State Attorney Ober found no criminal wrong doing. That was what we always expected because the legal bar is low, no forensic investigation was conducted and the investigation was contained within a very narrow focus.

Cronyism does not equate to illegal and we never stated it did. Just because something is not illegal, does not mean it is ethical, moral, virtuous, honest or has any sense of integrity.  

But thanks to County Administrator Mike Merrill who asked for the investigation. The bigger news is the detailed investigation report confirms much of what the Eye has stated about the Go Hillsborough debacle. The cronyism is obvious and the timeline of events are not coincidental. 

The entire investigative report can be found here. Read it because it is "Eye" opening. It's a pdf file so use the "Find" tool and search on the words Parsons, Beth Leytham, lobbyist, or the names of those interviewed which included all the commissioners, Mayor Buckhorn, Mike Merrill, Bob Clifford. A Pepcid or antacid may be needed before reading to prevent heartburn or nausea. 

We are trudging through the almost 2000 pages. Here's a glimpse of some of what we have read, learned or confirmed:

Confirmed: Go Hillsborough was always about a sales tax hike…..stupid……

The county used the guise of public engagement to orchestrate and create a taxpayer funded Go Hillsborough campaign to specifically sell another sales tax hike. Go Hillsborough was not about doing engineering work - there was never an engineer provided by Parsons nor any certified engineering documents produced. We did get branding, electioneering focus groups, electioneering polling and colluding with the media to create their "message".

What is in this report? 
Confirms Beth Leytham's massive access. Pages 147-158 of the report contains Leytham's phone records for the time period of 8/1-9/5. That was the time period leading up to the County handing Parsons their no bid million dollar blank check. WTSP's Pransky added up the number of calls for that time period in his last report:

As reported by WTSP's Noah Pransky,
# of calls from/to Beth Leytham
between 8/12014 and 9/5/2014

Below are Leytham's phone records just for the day of the August 12 Policy Leadership Group (PLG) meeting where suddenly the PLG was voting on hiring a consultant to do public engagement.

Leytham calls day of August 12, 2014 PLG meeting  (click to enlarge)

What really happened between June and August of 2014?

Merrill stated at the May 2014 PLG meeting that the transit projects were to be presented to the PLG members at the next PLG meeting in June. Roads had already been discussed during previous months meeting. Merrill cancelled June and July PLG meetings. Instead of picking up where they left off in May and presenting transit projects to the PLG in August, all of a sudden the PLG was voting to hire a "transportation expert not a PR firm" to do transportation public engagement.

Obviously a decision was made between the May and August PLG meetings, outside of Sunshine and behind the scenes that the direction of the PLG changed. Who made that decision and/or who influenced that decision? From those interviewed, the county or Merrill or someone(s) felt there was a sense of urgency to getting this public engagement done so a vote could be taken by the commissioners to put another sales tax hike on the 2016 ballot. It was all about getting a referendum on the 2016 ballot. The transit projects, as promised by Merrill, were never presented publicly to the PLG. 

What else is gleaned from the report?

• Page 95 - Commissioner Hagan and Leytham text each other during county commission meetings, including text messages related to agenda items (ironically the agenda for county commission meetings provided the public clearly state ALL CELLULAR PHONES AND PAGERS MUST BE TURNED OFF WHILE IN THE BOARDROOM.) Are they exempt from their own rules? 

Every BOCC agenda contains this
statement regarding cell phones

Text messages between Leytham and Hagan
during 10/7/2015 BOCC meeting (click to enlarge)

• We know who sends potty mouth text messages (text at 11:43:02)
• We know who cannot sneeze without speaking first with Leytham
• We know who writes Commissioner Hagan's scripted soliquoy's
• We know the sequence of events were not coincidental
• While apparently not illegal,the county abused the CCNA procurement process which is governed by Florida Statute 287.55 to procure "professional engineering services". This Statute must be reformed by our state legislators so the abuse of using it to procure taxpayer funded campaign work for a referendum never happens again - as that is using taxpayer money against the taxpayer - a post for another day.

One of the biggest issues the Sheriff's investigation seemed concerned about was all the gray matter surrounding what constitutes a lobbyist (or not).

Page 47 of the report includes Parsons Brinckerhoff's "Political Consultants" agreement with Beth Leytham dated April 2014. Parsons paid Leytham a $5000 a month retainer fee to use her politically well connected relationships to obtain business for PB in the Tampa Bay area. 

Parsons/Leytham "Political Consultants" Agreement
dated April 2014 (click to enlarge)

Leytham was working for Parsons when all those calls above were made. Common sense indicates Parsons Brinckerhoff was paying Leytham to exploit her access, especially the massive access she has with electeds. She was being paid $5000 a month by Parsons to obtain "prospective opportunities" during those months leading up to the county handing Parsons the public engagement "opportunity". It was well worth Parsons investment because four months and $20K later, Parsons was handed the $1.35 million campaign with Leytham "in tow".

Leytham and Parsons Brinckerhoff have had contracts working together for years. Her website highlights Parsons Brinckerhoff as one of her clients. As we posted here, Leytham and Parsons worked on Buckhorn's $1.2 million InVision Tampa. Everyone knows who Leytham is as she has had plenty of media coverage over the years (another post for another day). Don't kid yourself that there is anyone down at County Center who suddenly got amnesia and feigns ignorance of who Beth Leytham is. 

Leytham's clients highlighted on her website

A concern that appears to have been brought up in the report  is the numerous hats Leytham wears. She wears so many - "friend", campaign consultant, consultant, advocate, close associate, lobbyist, political consultant, information traffic cop, political ally, intelligence gatherer, media conduit, personal Google alert….How did those decision makers, who she had massive access to and was in constant communication with, know what hat she was wearing whenever they were communicating or she called or texted?

It is apparent that Leytham likes to stick her nose into county and city business while wearing all her hats. But Leytham was not just a nosy busybody like Mrs. Gladys Kravitz of the old TV show Bewitched. Leytham is a highly paid "Insider" busybody who has been on the receiving end of lots of money, including lots of taxpayer money. Exploiting her massive access to electeds and decision makers, it certainly appears her "Insider" busybody nosiness has benefited her. 

Nosy Busybody Gladys Kravitz from "Bewitched"

A common question throughout the investigation asked of those interviewed under oath was whether Beth Leytham was a lobbyist. Many of those interviewed conveniently used the same terminology to describe Leytham (as if coached) - she's an advocate, a consultant and an "intelligence source". But asked if she was a lobbyist - almost all said no.

County Administrator Mike Merrill admits that "depending on who you ask, yeah she was a lobbyist" and how "clever" she was because she never disclosed who she was representing. He throws it back to Leytham's responsibility to register as a lobbyist, which of course, she did not. He throws his hands up and says it's not his or the county's responsibility to enforce anything. Nice, huh? No wonder she wanted that lobbying ordinance presentation from Hagan on the day that item was on the county commission agenda. Think she wanted to weigh in on it?

From HCSO Interview with Merrill
 (click to enlarge)

In Commissioner Murman's interview that begins on page 734, she cearly stated Leytham was a lobbyist:

From HCSO Interview with Leytham
(click to enlarge)

Here’s some definitions for lobbyist:

dictionary.com: a person who tries to influence legislation on behalf of a special interest

vocabulary.com: A lobbyist is someone hired by a business or a cause to persuade legislators to support that business or cause.

businessdictionary.com: The act of attempting to influence business and government leaders to create legislation or conduct an activity that will help a particular organization.

If lobbying before the state legislature, below is FL Statute 11.045 Lobbying before the Legislature which defines lobbying and lobbyists:

(f) “Lobbying” means influencing or attempting to influence legislative action or nonaction through oral or written communication or an attempt to obtain the goodwill of a member or employee of the Legislature. 

(g) “Lobbying firm” means any business entity, including an individual contract lobbyist, that receives or becomes entitled to receive any compensation for the purpose of lobbying, where any partner, owner, officer, or employee of the business entity is a lobbyist. 

(h) “Lobbyist” means a person who is employed and receives payment, or who contracts for economic consideration, for the purpose of lobbying, or a person who is principally employed for governmental affairs by another person or governmental entity to lobby on behalf of that other person or governmental entity.

Leytham never registered as a lobbyist. 

If it walks, talks and squawks like a lobbyist, what is it?

Do we expect our electeds and powerful decision makers to tiptoe around and tiptoe over the legal bar or be leaping over the ethical bar? 

Read the investigative report and you decide. 

More to come so keep a big supply of antacid.

Goings On At County Center in August 2014: Leytham, Merrill and Sharpe

We await the completion of the Go Hillsborough law enforcement investigation expected by the end of this month. Much of the focus of electeds has been on Mayor Buckhorn and County Commissioners Murman and Hagan. However, it was former County Commissioner Mark Sharpe who made the motion at a March 2013 BOCC meeting to start the transportation initiative that created the Transportation Policy Leadership Group (PLG) and morphed into the crony Go Hillsborough campaign.

Sharpe was also a member of the HART Board when County Administrator Mike Merrill proposed, with zero public input, a hostile takeover of HART by all electeds in May 2014. As we posted about that proposed hostile takeover here in June 2014

County Commissioner Mark Sharpe, who has been advocating for transit change for years, called the plan a "HART transplant" on Twitter. The changes will create a far more robust HART capable of running more buses, taking on larger projects and increasing opportunities for transit-oriented development, he said.

Sharpe was a commissioner when the PLG voted on August 12, 2014 to hire a transportation expert to do public outreach and when Parsons Brinckherhoff was handed the million dollar no bid contract on September 5, 2014.

Something changed with the direction of the PLG between May 28, 2014 and August 12, 2014 and it was done all behind the scenes. As we posted here, Merrill stated at the May 28, 2014 PLG meeting that transit projects would be the focus at the next [June] PLG meeting and both he and Mayor Buckhorn specifically stated that rail was included.

WE ARE GOING TO FOCUS ON TRANSIT SPECIFICALLY NEXT MONTH, BUT WE'RE RECOGNIZING THAT IT'S A CHICKEN AND THE EGG.IF WE DON'T HAVE THE DENSITY, IF WE DON'T HAVE THE PROPER DEVELOPMENT PLANNING, THEN WE CAN'T CREATE THE KIND OF TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM THAT WE NEED TO SUPPORT ALL THE PEOPLE THAT WE WANT TO COME LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY IN OUR DOWNTOWN AREA.  

BOB BUCKHORN: I THINK IT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT — BECAUSE IF -- OBVIOUSLY, EVERYONE HAS SEEN THAT WE PUT A RAIL PROJECT ON THIS LIST, SO NO SURPRISE TO ANYBODY, IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS DONE. 

WE WERE PLANNING FOR MORE OF A FOCUS ON TRANSIT IN OUR NEXT WORKSHOP AS THE MAYOR SAID, WE'VE GOT MASS TRANSIT RAIL ON OUR LIST.

LET ME JUST PREVIEW, AGAIN, OUR JUNE MEETING.WE'LL BE PRESENTING TO YOU THE FIRST PARTS OF THE BUSINESS PLAN, WHICH WILL INCLUDE ALL THE KEY ECONOMIC SPACES AND WHAT THOSE PROJECTS WILL COST; TRANSIT; AND A FURTHER MORE DETAILED DISCUSSION OF GOVERNANCE 

BUT OUR PLAN IS AS SOON AS YOU GIVE US AN ENDORSEMENT ON THAT BUSINESS PLAN, WHICH, AGAIN, WILL HAVE PROJECTS, FINANCING, GOVERNANCE, WE'LL GO OUT AGAIN TO A MORE DETAILED PUBLIC ENGAGEMENT PROCESS WITH THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY AND THE REST OF THE COMMUNITY, SO THAT'S OUR PLAN FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS.

A business plan with projects, funding and governance was going to be presented at the June PLG meeting for a decision to start public engagement. None of that ever happened. Instead Merrill cancelled the June and July 2014 PLG meetings and suddenly in August was asking the PLG to vote to hire a consultant to do public outreach.

There was never any discussion or a vote by the PLG in the Sunshine for this total direction change. There was no transparency for what Merrill was doing behind the scenes between the May and August PLG meetings. It appears he orchestrated outside of Sunshine his plan for the Go Hillsborough campaign. Who was directing Merrill to make this total direction change the summer of 2014 - Beth Leytham, county commissioner(s), special interests? The only assumption one can make is Merrill orchestrated this direction change, with no transparency and behind the scenes, with the county commissioners because no county commissioner asked any questions why they were being asked to vote on hiring a consultant for public outreach. No one questioned what it would cost either.

The goings on down at County Center in August 2014 appears to be key.

Noah Pransky's first article about PR lobbyist Beth Leytham on September 14, 2015 titled The Gatekeeper included the text messages below of August 8 and August 13, 2014 between Merrill and Leytham. Note the August 13th text was one day AFTER the August 12th Transportation Policy Leadership Group meeting but before Parsons was handed the no bid contract.

Text Messages from Leytham to Merrill August 8 & 13, 2014
 (click to enlarge)

From a Public Records Request, Sharpe and some other county commissioners received an email from a constituent on August 13, 2014 at 12:02 who said NO to rail. Lo and behold that email had a link to our Eye blog post Inconvenient Truths on Local Transit Conveniently Avoided that disclosed the AEComm transit assessment. The AEComm report stated that Hillsborough County does not have the ridership to qualify for federal funds for rail and fixed guideways and recommended "Hillsborough County should approach making transit investments cautiously and prudently" (emphasis mine).

Sharpe felt compelled almost immediately to forward that email to Merrill at 12:13 from his phone. Sharpe told Merrill the county needs a "media/messaging strategy" to respond to inaccuracies and introduce transportation facts.

Sharpe email to Merrill on Aug. 13, 2014
 (click to enlarge)

How can Sharpe insinuate my blog post was inaccurate? I quoted directly from the AEComm assessment. Sharpe knew about the assessment that the county paid for but Merrill refused to present publicly to the PLG or hand directly to the media as Merrill did other more less relevant documents and information. The County initially tried to hide the assessment by burying it within another document posted on the PLG website - until the County was at least shamed into posting it directly on the PLG website with an obscure file name that no one would recognize or understand.

As our blog post previously reported, we directly asked Sharpe for a copy of the AEComm transit assessment report on May 22nd. He refused to provide it at that time using the excuse that it was still a draft. That excuse does not hold water with our Florida Statute 119 Sunshine Laws regarding public records requests and we know Merrill has provided draft documents and information not yet complete requested by others via public records request. Merrill refused to even mention this assessment at his media briefing on July 29, 2014 so no media attention was brought to bear on it because it would totally blow their rail agenda.

We had to submit a Public Records Request to get the AEComm document.

Why is Sharpe, in his Aug. 13, 2014 email the day after the PLG voted to hire a transportation expert, and supposedly not a PR firm, worried about information that can sink campaigns? Was it because he knew the Go Hillsborough public engagement that was being orchestrated behind the scenes was really a campaign for another huge sales tax hike?

In Sharpe's email to Merrill, he stated he wanted a messaging strategy to introduce transportation facts. From what we now know about Go Hillsborough, that request is almost comical.

We have numerous posts regarding how flawed the Go Hillsborough campaign was. They introduced half-truths, ignored important information, made false claims, made claims with no facts to back up their claim, used misleading information and displayed misleading pictures at their meetings of traffic on I-5 in LA insinuating it was I-275 in Hillsborough County. Go Hillsborough was selective about the information they provided the public to advance their agenda that the only funding solution was another huge sales tax increase - that's why they proposed the tax before any plan. These tactics are not trivial, they are devastating - especially when the county has money to fund our roads and transportation needs but simply refuses to. These campaign tactics used by a crony PR firm, that cost taxpayers $1.3 million for the Go Hillsborough effort with little oversight, is what sinks campaigns and damages credibility.

Merrill responds to Sharpe's email the evening of August 13, 2014, conveniently after his text message exchange with Beth Leytham (see above) that afternoon.

Merrill email to Sharpe on Aug. 13, 2014
(Click to enlarge)

Leytham had told Merrill on Aug. 13 2014 to contact the local media editorial board writers and Merrill follows her direction and tells Sharpe he is doing that the very next day. Merrill also tells Sharpe that is he working on "communication outreach consulting assistance" and he will know more tomorrow.  Hmmm…more collusion with the media regarding a policy issue…Is that the role of a County Administrator?

The Merrill/Sharpe email thread can be found here.

How long has Leytham been directing Merrill what to do? Who's really running County Center? In what role was she directing him  -  as a PR lobbyist, a friend, a political consultant, a conduit for the media or special interests?  Merrill works for the county commissioners, not Beth Leytham. Was a county commissioner instructing Leytham to tell Merrill what to do? Were there any violations of our Sunshine laws?

Disingenuously, Merrill told Pransky he did not know Leytham. The tone of the text messages between them prove otherwise.

Beth Leytham is best buds and has a very cozy relationship with Guidry of the Tribune and Hill of TBT. Was Leytham roping Merrill in with the media to collude and collaborate to push the sales tax hike campaign they both knew was about to start with Parsons Brinckerhoff?

Because next thing we know, as Pransky reported, Leytham sends Merrill her August 19 text message below telling him the transportation expert will come in with their own communication team in tow. Again, what role is Leytham playing directing Mike Merill what to do? Was she directing Merrill as a conduit from some county commissioners or from some special interests? Was Merrill acting like a lap dog for whatever Leytham wanted him to do?

Pransky also reported:

Leytham told 10Investigates she wasn’t looking out for her client or herself; she was merely looking out for the community.

“That (text) is exactly what it is on its face,” she said. “It is a communications strategy and it is a recommendation and information.”

Leytham was "looking out for the community" with her expensive proposition? We don't think so. Public engagement was originally estimated to be about $200K but Leytham quotes over a million and, of course, she wanted a piece of those tax dollars.

And Voila! Merrill and the county hands Parsons Brinckerhoff, who happens to also be Leytham's client, a million dollar blank check no bid contract on September 5, 2014. It was never publicly disclosed by Parsons or the County that Parsons was bringing in their communication team in tow because the PLG had specifically stated they did not want a PR firm doing the public engagement.  We now know who the "communications outreach consulting assistance" is that Merrill was pulling together - a communication consultant team of one - Beth Leytham.

Leytham immediately started directing the Go Hillsborough show and colluding with the local media propaganda from the get go. Pransky's investigative report included this September 19, 2014 text message thread between Leytham and Merrill

Leytham/Merrill text message exchange of Sept. 19, 2014

Remember at this very same time Leytham was Mayor Buckhorn's campaign consultant.  What county perspective on September 19, 2014 is Leytham referring to that she knows Buckhorn agrees with? Leytham is behind the scenes directing the local media editorial propaganda on this issue.

Isn't it disturbing that no county commissioner ever raised any concerns about the direct violation of their request to not hire a PR firm to do the public engagement? Isn't it disturbing that no county commissioner raised any concern about using the CCNA procurement process, a procurement process governed by state statute to procure professional engineering services, was used to hire the politically well connected PR lobbyist Leytham through the back door and was never publicly disclosed?

Timeline:

• August 12, 2014: PLG votes to hire transportation expert on August 12, 2014
• August 13, 2014:  
• Leytham texts Merrill and directs him to contact the media 
• Sharpe contacts Merrill about needing a communications strategy and his concern about what sinks a "campaign"
• Merrill responds to Sharpe that he is meeting with media (as directed by Leytham) and working on a solution for communications outreach consultant assistance
• August 19, 2014:  Leytham texts Merrill that transportation expert brings their communication team in tow and quotes a cost of $1.2 million
• September 5, 2014: County hands Parsons a million dollar no bid contract with their communication team of one in tow - the politically well connected PR lobbyist Beth Leytham 
• October 2015: County hands Sharpe $2 million for his Tampa Innovation Alliance in the FY2016 budget

We asked for text messages between Mark Sharpe and Beth Leytham during this time period. The county stated since Sharpe no longer has his county issued phone they cannot access any of his text messages that were county business related. The county was not archiving them previously as they say they are now. The cell phone provider would have the archived text messages.

We hope the law enforcement investigation includes Sharpe since he was the commissioner who started what turned into such a debacle. Sharpe got rewarded in the 2016 county budget with $2 million for his non-profit Tampa Innovation Alliance that has held some events and recruits members but has no record of successfully doing anything.

The sequence of events associated with Go Hillsborough were not coincidental. They were deliberate and orchestrated. Too much of the entire transportation initiative was orchestrated behind the scenes with no transparency which has resulted in more lack of trust and credibility.

Whatever all the goings on were behind the scenes down at County Center between May and August 2014, it appears they directly resulted in the Go Hillsborough crony mess.

Mike Merrill was smack in the middle of the Go Hillsborough debacle and it all happened on his watch. Regardless of what comes out of the law enforcement investigation, the county commissioners must remove Merrill from the transportation issue.

Go Hillsborough's Private Campaign Collusion Behind the Green Curtain

As the Eye has repeatedly posted, the Go Hillsborough proposal was created through a crony and very flawed process resulting in a flawed plan (and a law enforcement investigation). But common sense (so lacking in politics today) did prevail last week. 

The county commissioners did the right thing and voted last Wednesday 4-3 NO. The proposed Go Hillsborough sales tax hike will not be on the November ballot. The Eye appreciates the four county commissioners who voted No: Commissioners Victor Crist, Sandy Murman, Al Higginbotham and Stacy White. Please thank them. 

Republican County Commissioner Ken Hagan sided with Democrats Les Miller and Kevin Beckner voting YES to putting the proposed 30 year 1/2% sales tax hike on the ballot. Hagan even doubled down after the 30 year sales tax hike got voted down and seconded a motion by Beckner for a 20 year sales tax hike. 

Why such behavior from Hagan? Because Hagan always supported another huge sales tax hike referendum. He has refused to consider anything else. We can only speculate about Hagan's position on the sales tax also being connected with his #1 focus - paying for a new Rays baseball stadium in Hillsborough County.

Leytham is a very close associate of Hagan and Buckhorn. She is a political operative who has worked for both of their campaigns, often referred to as their campaign consultant. The Times reported right after Parsons Brinckerhoff was handed their million dollar no bid contract [with Leytham in tow] at the end of August 2014 that Mayor Buckhorn filed for reelection, and had assembled his same team of political operatives including Leytham and pollster Keith Frederick. Leytham used Frederick for Go Hillsborough polling conveniently circling our county taxpayer monies to Mayor Buckhorn's pollster.

Beth Leytham is a very close associate of  Hagan, Buckhorn

While Leytham was being paid hundreds of thousands of county taxpayer dollars to facilitate the public face of the Go Hillsborough campaign, she was orchestrating the behind the green curtain private campaign with at least Merrill and Hagan.   

The Eye received a copy of an email sent last week to the county commissioners and President of the Tampa Chamber of Commerce from citizen Tom Rask. Rask's email is a public record so anyone can get a copy of it. It contains information Rask received via a previous public records request he made last year.

To:     Hillsborough County Commission
Cc:     Bob Rohrlack, his assistant Ms. Greco
Bcc:    Interested citizens

Today, in a widely distributed e-mail and in a blog entry posted on their Facebook page (which has over 5,000 followers), the Tampa Chamber insulted the BoCC majority who voted NO on Go Hillsborough last night.

Tampa Chamber CEO Bob Rohrlack wrote:

"We are disappointed that a majority the Board of County Commissioners failed to place a half-cent sales tax increase on the ballot this fall.  As I stated last night during the public comment portion of the hearing – our community must make a significant, long-term investment in transportation. Kicking the can down the road is not what we expect of our elected officials nor what our community deserves."So according to Bob Rohrlack, Commissioners Victor Crist, Al Higginbotham, Sandy Murman and Stacy White "kicked the can down the road last night".

This is interesting given that Mr. Rohrlack has not directed similarly harsh words towards Beth Leytham for corrupting the process to begin with. Let's recall that in an official county news release on April 7th, 2015 ( see it here), County Staffer Liana Lopez wrote:

With the first phase of this grass-roots engagement completed, GO Hillsborough will continue with the second, Choices phase from April 6 - May 21. These next 16 open house-style workshops and two telephone town hall meetings will delve further into potential transportation options, and identify areas of consensus and commonality among community preferences. Importantly, only after community needs and desires are clearly understood will strategy and funding options be recommended for the Community Transportation Plan.    [my underlining added]

So if no recommendations on "funding options" were to be made until that second phase was completed, then why was Ms. Leytham discussing a timeline involving "Approve Ballot Language" with Comm. Hagan in the middle of this phase? She did so in e-mails on April 27th, 2015 (attached).

In the attached e-mail (see below), Leytham induced a county commissioner to short-circuit the process she was supposed to be facilitating. That is exactly the kind of corruption of process that killed Go Hillsborough.

Comm. Hagan can perhaps be forgiven for not knowing the exact details of the process, but Leytham cannot be forgiven because her company was the process.
-----------

In my e-mail to you earlier today, I didn't do a touchdown dance over the defeat of Go Hillsborough. I didn't gloat. I've worked really hard to focus on issues, not people. I wish Mr. Rohrlack would've exercised similar restraint so that we can debate issues rather than insults.

------------

As always, thank you for your time.

Regards,

Tom Rask

================================================

Below is the Leytham/Hagan April 2015 email thread referenced above. An actual copy can be found here. Note that Leytham uses her business email address but her email is intentionally sent to Hagan's personal aol.com email address (not his county commission address: HaganK@hillsboroughcounty.org)

From: hagans@aol.com

To: Von der Osten, Barbara

Subject: Fwd: Go Hills - Timelines

Date: Monday, September 28, 2015 3:59:53 PM

-----Original Message-----

From: Ken Hagan <hagans@aol.com>

To: Beth Leytham <bethleytham@theleythamgroup.com>

Sent: Mon, Apr 27, 2015 6:07 pm

Subject: Re: Go Hills - Timelines

Oct 7 looks like the meeting to approve ordinance...

Sent from my iPad

On Apr 26, 2015, at 8:09 PM, Beth Leytham <bethleytham@theleythamgroup.com> wrote:

You good with the general timeline? See other re petition drive, just

fyi.

General Timeline

· PB Recommendations/Briefings to PLG – May 26

· PLG - PB Recommendations Presentation- June 11

· BOCC - Administrator’s budget recommendation - June 17

· BOCC – dark beginning of July through July 15

· PLG finalize Recommendations to BOCC – mid July

· Grassroots/Project Specificity a la Go Hills - August – December (this date is published in I

& O report)

· BOCC – late August/early September – late Oct./early November

           o Approve Budget

           o Approve Ballot Language, Ordinance, etc.

· Campaign “begins” – Jan 2016 (actually moment it is confirmed to ballot)

· Vote – November 2016

Petition Drive

Given the exact negative/losing trajectory that Hillsborough and neighboring Pinellas

suffered from the longer campaigns, here is another timeline:

· Professional Grassroots/Campaign ($450,000) – Pre organize & organize - now through

Jan. 2016 (oversight group, general campaign manager/consultant & fundraising)

· Signature/Petition Drive – January – June 2016

         o Assess primary v. general

· Officially place on Ballot – June 2016

· Obviously, this could shorten campaign from 9 months to 3 or 5 months and reduce overall

campaign costs from $2m to $1.2m (general research and excluding grassroots

fees/costs.)

· Mike is opposed.

        o Concern is failure to get signatures

        o Loss of control of ballot language (we can manage that part)

        o Swing commissioners won’t support as too close to 2016 election cycle

Beth Leytham

TheLeythamGroup

518 N. Tampa Street

Suite 310

Tampa, FL 33602

813.223.5951 (o)

813.245.1522 (c)

www.theleythamgroup.com

This email thread provides more evidence that the Go Hillsborough campaign was a taxpayer funded crony, phony campaign for another huge sales tax hike referendum. 

Leytham used her politically well connected "Insider" relationships to collude behind the scenes personally with Hagan and others on a referendum. Go Hillsborough used half-truths and flat out false information in their campaign messaging. Now we know why. 

It was Hagan who "jumped the shark" for a huge sales tax hike last April - right in the middle of the Go Hillsborough meetings when there was no plan and funding was not even being discussed. We later found out Hagan did that immediately after Go Hillsborough Leytham did a poll showing lukewarm support of maybe 50% who would support a 30 year 1/2% sales tax hike. This was the same poll that Go Hillsborough Leytham and the County refused to comply with my public records requests for the poll details until Channel 10's WTSP's Mike Deeson got involved.

Why was Leytham telling Hagan in April 2015 about a proposed $450,000 Professional/Grassroots campaign for a petition drive to get the sales tax hike on the November ballot? A $450,000 campaign is NO grassroots campaign. 

Who else was Leytham involved in discussions with last year about some petition drive? Tampa Chamber? Mayor Buckhorn? Kevin Thurman? Mercury public affairs or some other PR firm? Obviously Merrill knew about some proposed petition drive because he opposed it. Merrill thought he was going to be successful in pushing public support for the sales tax hike so he opposed any petition drive at that time. 

While the Go Hillsborough campaign and the county were telling the public one thing last April, Leytham was busy behind the scenes orchestrating the sales tax hike referendum - while she was being paid lots of taxpayer dollars by the county through Parsons.

Why did Hagan personally tell Leytham in April 2015 that a vote on the sales tax hike ordinance should be held at the October 7 BOCC meeting? Because Merrill kept stating "they" needed at least a year to "educate" the public….Who is acting as the information traffic copy and conduit for who?

Now Kevin Thurman, the Executive Director of Connect Tampa Bay (CTB), our local transit lobbyist, is advocating for a petition drive. What a coincidence!

The Tribune reported that Kevin Thurman, suddenly being referred to as simply a mass transit advocate - not associated with Connect Tampa Bay, conveniently talks about a citizens petition drive to get the sales tax hike on the ballot:

As soon as the vote was recorded Wednesday night, mass transit advocates were calling for a grass-roots petition drive to put a transportation referendum directly on the ballot. It’s not clear whether they would be shooting for the Nov. 8 election or waiting until 2018. 

It would take 43,611 signed and verified petitions to put a measure on the ballot this year. 

“I think you will see people take matters into their own hands and bypass the county commission,” said Kevin Thurman, an advocate for mass transit.

Was Thurman involved with Leytham's petition drive discussion last year? Kevin Thurman is also a close associate of Beth Leytham. Leytham intentionally used the same brand name "Go Hillsborough" as Connect Tampa Bay's 1% sales tax hike plan they publicly proposed in January 2014 named "Go Hillsborough". Maybe Leytham originally created the brand name in the first place for CTB.

Obviously, collusion behind the scenes reigned throughout the entire Go Hillsborough debacle. What is more disturbing is Go Hillsborough was not an anomaly. Go Hillsborough is simply a symptom of bigger issues with how County Center operates.

Shame on the Tampa Chamber and our local media for supporting such a crony flawed mess. Is this the type of behavior they accept from our electeds and high powered bureaucrats? The use of any means to justify the end - another sales tax hike referendum. 

Go Hillsborough debacle occurred under County Administrator Mike Merrill. There must be some accountability for this mess to regain trust and credibility.  

Going forward Merrill and his deputies, Beth Leytham and Parsons Brinckerhoff must be as far removed from our transportation issue as possible.

For now - Good riddance to Go Hillsborough!

New Take on that Rashid Rant

We condemn Sam Rashid's and anyone else's misogynist, sexist and other needless derogatory comments.

But he did raise some points the media chose to ignore despite their never ending coverage of the rant, until WTSP's Noah Pransky independently broke the story that was the subject of Rashid's rant. Rashid's comments were directed about Beth Leytham's behind the scenes cronyism, much of which has been covered in this blog over the last year. However, Rashid's language overshadowed the subject of his comment.

Which got us thinking... there might be a few more dots to connect that no one else has explored.

It did occur us the last week of so during the Sam Rashid kerfuffle, the local media was hyperventilating over a hot-headed, personal comment Rashid made on Facebook, obviously not intended for wide public consumption. It's not the first time for Rashid, who got in hot water earlier for some comments about Facebook posts on judges.

Sam Rashid

The Tribune and Times were all over the story, each publishing several articles.

The Tribune published lead editorial, a Joe Henderson column, and 5 other articles all critical of Rashid's misogynistic language and generally supportive of Leytham and Go Hillsborough.

Only to be beat out by the Times, which is now up to 11 articles and counting including an editorial and an Ernest Hooper column, John Romano commentary, and Sue Carlton.

Fair enough if a bit more than overdone.

In this day and age, this once again shows anything you say can and will be used against you in any way if it's convenient to do so by your opponents.

This time, and this timing, it was very very convenient to do so.

But neither the Tribune nor the Times ever discussed the merits of Rashid's statement, which that Beth Leytham is behind much of the mess that is Go Hillsborough, pulling the levers of power behind the scenes, crossing the gray lines between lobbying, activism, and policy, and political campaigns.

Now let's open up a few more questions about the Rashid kerfuffle.

Who was trolling Rashid's Facebook page, and leaked it to the media?

It is rather interesting that someone saw that and it conveniently found its way out to the media.

Would it have been leaked without Rashid's use of language?

Was the leaker aware of Pransky's investigation and upcoming report?

Pranksy stated he had been working on the report for a year, so with all his investigation, the principals in the report knew something was up, and he stated so in his report. Pransky claimed that Leytham and Connect Tampa Bay's Kevin Thurman tried to tarnish him with the Rashid statement.

And when a member of the Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, Sam Rashid, made sexist remarks about Leytham in a Facebook comment, Leytham and Kevin Thurman from Connect Tampa Bay repeatedly tried to tie 10 Investigates to the story.

Rashid was not one of 10 Investigates’ more than two dozen sources for this series, nor did WTSP communicate with Rashid during the research or writing of this investigation. Rashid has since removed his comment and apologized to Leytham, but as news of the investigation spread through Tampa-area political circles, Rashid told the Tampa Bay Business Journal he won’t resign from his board position until after 10 Investigates’ story is published.

Despite repeated assurances that there was no WTSP/Rashid relationship whatsoever, Thurman tried to “withdraw” a quote he provided until it was explained to him if Rashid was a source for our report. Leytham sent numerous text messages, e-mails, and voicemail messages to media outlets in Tampa Bay suggesting the upcoming investigation had no credibility because Rashid was awaiting it.

We can conclude that Leytham and Connect Tampa Bay's Kevin Thurman definitely tried to use the Rashid rant to blunt Pransky's critical report.

Beth Leytham

What is the Tribune's and the Times relationship with Leytham?  She claims in her practice as a PR firm to have relationships in the media, including the editorial boards on both papers. We know for a fact she has met with the editorial boards regarding Go Hillsborough. Her relationship with the editorial staff is something she has stated as one of her qualifications for PR work.

Why did neither the Tribune nor the Times editorial writers disclose their relationship with Beth Leytham?

Were the Tribune and the Times played for gullible pawns in this power play?  How much of their blind support for Go Hillsborough has been influenced by Beth Leytham?

Leytham claims to be good at what she does, including crisis management.  What is the real crisis here?

Is it Sam Rashid's rant?

Or is the real crisis the failing message behind Go Hillsborough?

Who is responsible for that failing message?

Did Leytham or other Go Hillsborough supporters use Rashid's rant to attempt to preempt Pransky's report critical of her relationships and her work on Go Hillsborough?

After all, preemption and redirection is a well known PR and crisis management technique.

Leytham's good at what she does. Just ask her. She is the Queen of Damage Control.

We're not prone to conspiracy theories when sheer incompetence will explain the mess.

This time, we're not so sure.

Disclosure: We have met Sam Rashid, or at least been in the same room, but have no ongoing relationship. We have met Beth Leytham, or at least been in the same room, but have no ongoing relationship.

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.