Tampa, Fl
From: Eye On Tampa Bay
Posted by: Sharon Calvert
From: Eye On Tampa Bay
Posted by: Sharon Calvert
As a county commission
candidate, Kimberly Overman supported the All for Transportation 30 year $16
Billion sales tax hike referendum. Commissioner White filed a lawsuit
contending the charter amendment language was misleading and violated state
statute.
As a newly elected commissioner, she stated in a December 4 Tampa Bay Times article about Commissioner White's lawsuit:
As a newly elected commissioner, she stated in a December 4 Tampa Bay Times article about Commissioner White's lawsuit:
County Commissioner Kimberly Overman said the
referendum language was vetted closely...“This is a waste of
taxpayers’ money and that’s a shame,” Overman said.
Overman made her
public claim about the referendum language being vetted as if it was a fact not
her opinion.
Facts can be proven. There's been multiple attempts asking for Overman to prove her claim.
Tom Rask, owner and editor of the Tampa Bay Guardian, attended the December 5, 2018 Hillsborough BOCC meeting and made a public comment. From the meeting transcript his comment included:
Facts can be proven. There's been multiple attempts asking for Overman to prove her claim.
Tom Rask, owner and editor of the Tampa Bay Guardian, attended the December 5, 2018 Hillsborough BOCC meeting and made a public comment. From the meeting transcript his comment included:
I WOULD ASK THIS BODY TO ASK HARD QUESTIONS OF
AFT, ALL FOR TRANSPORTATION.
THEY HAD A $4 MILLION BUDGET, AND IT APPEARS
THEY DID NOT SPEND A SINGLE DIME ON LEGAL OPINION.
MR. WILLIS, WHO IS IN THE AUDIENCE HERE, TOLD
FLORIDA POLITICS YESTERDAY THAT THE REFERENDUM, THIS THING WAS VETTED BY
HOLLAND & KNIGHT, YET THEY DON'T SHOW ANY CAMPAIGN EXPENDITURES, ANY
PAYMENTS BEING MADE TO HOLLAND & KNIGHT.
I CAN ONLY SEE A CONTRIBUTION FROM HOLLAND & KNIGHT.
IT IS A CASH CONTRIBUTION. IT'S NOT AN IN‑KIND CONTRIBUTION.
SO ASK THEM FOR THE LEGAL OPINION.
I CAN ONLY SEE A CONTRIBUTION FROM HOLLAND & KNIGHT.
IT IS A CASH CONTRIBUTION. IT'S NOT AN IN‑KIND CONTRIBUTION.
SO ASK THEM FOR THE LEGAL OPINION.
WHAT LEGAL OPINION OR OPINIONS DO ‑‑ DID THEY
GET BEFORE THEY PUT THIS ON THE BALLOT?
AND MS., COMMISSIONER OVERMAN WAS QUOTED IN
THE TIMES YESTERDAY SAYING THAT THIS REFERENDUM LANGUAGE WAS CLOSELY VETTED.
SO THEREFORE, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A PUBLIC
RECORDS REQUEST TO THE COUNTY HERE AND NOW FOR WHATEVER RECORDS COMMISSIONER
OVERMAN HAS TO SUPPORT THAT POSITION BECAUSE AS COMMISSIONERS, OBVIOUSLY YOU
CAN'T JUST RELY ON THE ASSERTIONS AND THE CONCLUSION FROM ALL FOR TRANSPORTATION.
I SENT YOU EXCEPT MS. SMITH BUT I WILL GET IT
TO COMMISSIONER SMITH, I SENT PROOF YESTERDAY THAT ALL FOR TRANSPORTATION WAS
AWARE OF THIS VERY ISSUE THAT COMMISSIONER WHITE HAS SUED OVER BACK ON JULY
5th. POSSIBLY EARLIER.
SO IF THEY WERE AWARE OF IT HAVING SPENT ALL
THIS MONEY ON PETITION GATHERING, WHY DIDN'T THEY BACK OFF AND MAYBE PUT IT ON
A LATER REFERENDUM?
DID THEY EXPLORE THE ISSUE?
WAS THERE ANY VALIDITY TO THIS ISSUE?
Tampa Bay Guardian recently posted this:
Overman’s claim was essentially the same as
the one made by All For Transportation (AFT) a day earlier, when AFT
spokesman told 10 News that their measure was
“thoroughly vetted.” AFT is the group that spent $4 million on the citizen
initiative to place the tax hike referendum on the ballot.
However, a public records request to Overman
for any records to support her “vetted closely” claim turned up no records. In
other words, Overman has no evidence to back up her claim and thus made no
effort to independently verify AFT’s claim which she parroted.
Despite repeated requests from multiple media
outlets, AFT itself has failed to produce evidence of any legal review of its
tax hike effort prior to placing it on the ballot.
After Overman made her claim on December 4th,
I also requested Overman backup her comments with evidence that the charter
amendment was "vetted closely". I sent my inquiry directly to Overman
that included asking her who legally vetted the referendum language, when did
the vetting occur, what was her role in the vetting, were any potential
conflicts addressed and who has statutory authority to allocate the sales
surtax proceeds. I also asked for any documentation or communication she had
related to the vetting process she clearly stated she knew about.
Overman immediately
forwarded my questions, sent directly to her because they were related to what
she publicly stated, to the County Attorney's office on December 7th. The County
Attorney's office turned around and sent my questions back to Overman for
"her" response.
On December 28th, three weeks later, the County Attorney's office sent me a reply that Overman could provide no response and no documentation to back up her claim that the All for Transportation tax hike charter amendment had been "vetted closely" by anyone.
If Overman's claim is factual, it could be proved. If there is no legal issue that needs addressing, then Overman must know who has statutory authority to appropriate the sales surtax proceeds. However, she refused to answer any questions or provide any evidence that the tax hike charter amendment language was legally vetted.
There is irony in Overman's non response.
Overman used time at the December 5th BOCC meeting for her own public comment. After she patted herself on the back for winning her election, she presented to the other county commissioners a bracelet that says "Because I said I would". Overman stated (emphasis mine):
On December 28th, three weeks later, the County Attorney's office sent me a reply that Overman could provide no response and no documentation to back up her claim that the All for Transportation tax hike charter amendment had been "vetted closely" by anyone.
If Overman's claim is factual, it could be proved. If there is no legal issue that needs addressing, then Overman must know who has statutory authority to appropriate the sales surtax proceeds. However, she refused to answer any questions or provide any evidence that the tax hike charter amendment language was legally vetted.
There is irony in Overman's non response.
Overman used time at the December 5th BOCC meeting for her own public comment. After she patted herself on the back for winning her election, she presented to the other county commissioners a bracelet that says "Because I said I would". Overman stated (emphasis mine):
I ENCOURAGE YOU ALL TO WEAR THIS DAILY AS
AN ACCOUNTABILITY REMINDER, ESPECIALLY AS IT RELATES TO THE
GREAT RESPONSIBILITY WE HAVE SITTING ON THIS DAIS.
Accountability begins
with being truthful, being transparent, being accountable for what you say or
do and providing a timely response to Public Records Requests.
As the Tampa Bay
Guardian reported, it took a threat by Mr. Rask on December 22nd that he would
sue the county to compel the public records to finally get a response from the
county on December 28th, the same day we received our response.
In an email Mr. Rask sent to all the
Hillsborough County commissioners regarding Overman's claim and her lack of
responsiveness, Rask informed the commissioners:
It turns out that commissioner Overman had
nothing to back up her claim - it was just hot air.
The fact that Overman did not seek to verify
this claim by a Vinik-funded group is appalling. Will she be so trusting when
Vinik has business before the commission?
Proper governance must
include protecting taxpayers, voters and citizens from any deceit, abuse or
unlawful actions.
On Kimberly Overman's website for her county commission campaign, she complains "Citizens are tired of being shut out of the process". She states she wants policy proposals using public input, and full transparency at all times.
On Kimberly Overman's website for her county commission campaign, she complains "Citizens are tired of being shut out of the process". She states she wants policy proposals using public input, and full transparency at all times.
Yet Overman supported
a 30 year $16 Billion tax hike policy proposal funded by wealthy special
interests that had no transparency and no public input.
Overman supported the
massive $16 Billion tax hike initiative with ZERO citizen input. She supported
a massive tax hike that shut out all citizen engagement, shut down any
opportunity for diverse stakeholders to provide input, shut down the ability
for any compromise, shut down the ability to consider any alternative funding
solutions including one already presented to the BOCC that does not require a
massive tax hike, shut down all debate and abusively used local media to push
the pro tax hike agenda.
Overman may have just
begun her 4 year term as a county commissioner but she has already diminished
her credibility. She refused to heed her own advice about accountability and
transparency.
In less than a month,
Overman's "I Said I Would" already turned into "No I
Won't".
Posted by Sharon Calvert at 8:32 AM
This
post is contributed by EYE ON TAMPA BAY. The views expressed in this post are
the blog publisher's and do not necessarily reflect those of the publisher of
Bay Post Internet.
Cross Posted with permission from: Eye On Tampa Bay
No comments:
Post a Comment