Commissioner Murman quoted in this 10 News article on reviewing the selection process for GO Hillsborough:
Hillsborough orders review after 10 News investigation
Noah Pransky, WTSP
6:09 a.m. EDT September 17, 2015
TAMPA, Florida – Hillsborough County commissioners Wednesday ordered an independent auditor to review the process the county used to choose a controversial team for its transportation outreach, now known as “Go Hillsborough.”
The action comes 36 hours after 10 Investigates exposed numerous questions about the behind-the-scenes influence of one member of the outreach team, Beth Leytham, who also happened to be a political adviser to at least one commissioner. Leytham texted County Administrator Mike Merrill during the procurement process to suggest several of her competitors not get considered for the job.
“It’s important that we get an independent review of that (Go Hillsborough) procurement,” said Commissioner Kevin Beckner, “and restore the trust and confidence that our community expects of us.”
A referendum in 2016 would propose raising the county’s sales tax by either a half-cent or full-cent in order to pay for billions of dollars in road construction and transit, potentially including light rail.
But Beckner — and other commissioners — said they were concerned their hard work could get derailed just as Greenlight Pinellas did last year by a series of missteps.
“(Greelight’s) process was attacked; their people were attacked; there was a lack of trust and integrity,” said Beckner.
Commissioner Al Higginbotham suggested the county should distance itself from the engineering firm associated with the questionable contract, Parsons Brinckerhoff, saying the firm had become “a distraction.” While other commissioners said an independent audit would be a good first step.
“I think at this juncture,” said Commissioner Victor Crist, “what we need to do is focus on re-establishing the trust and credibility.”
Commission Chair Sandy Murman, who was mentioned in Monday’s 10 Investigates report as a friend and associate of Leytham, suggested the county may want to call an end to the outreach portion of the process.
Recent community meetings have been sparsely attended, with just 600 total participants attending 30 Go Hillsborough events — an average of 20 constituents per event. This round of meetings — 54 in all — cost $350,000 and are funded by the county, cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City, as well as the Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority.
“Can we just accelerate the process?” Murman asked. “We (need to) show people that we’re trying to solve a problem (and) get out from under this cloud and solve our transportation issues.”
But County Administrator Mike Merrill said the process was nearly complete and the contractor was due to present its findings, polling data, and suggested referendum plan to the commission on Nov. 5.
“We all know this was a legally-procured initiative,” said Commissioner Ken Hagan, defending the process as well as Leytham, who also volunteers as his campaign spokesperson. “I fully support the audit, I know what it will come back and say…(but) transparency is of the utmost importance.
“The (critics) opposing this are using our contractor as a basis to obfuscate the issue at-hand, which is…to improve our transportation network.”
But one of those critics told commission Wednesday that a bad process can lead to a bad product.
“Please stop the Go Hillsborough process now,” said Sharon Calvert, co-founder of the Hillsborough County Tea Party, adding the county should demand a refund from public outreach contractors Parsons Brinckerhoff and The Leytham Group.
Calvert, who first pushed for an independent audit of the Go Hillsborough procurement nearly a year ago, said she was happy commissioners ordered a new look at the contract process, but was discouraged it may be left to the same two employees – county attorney Chip Fletcher and auditor Peggy Caskey – who were involved in the preliminary review earlier this year and found no need to investigate further.
However, the review simply aimed to find out whether the procurement met the letter of the law. It did not examine whether the county or commissioners were completely transparent, whether Leytham was improperly lobbying on behalf of her client, or whether there was any preferential treatment given to the Parsons/Leytham team.
