San Francisco County Grand Jury
• 2002-2003
The Human Rights Commission and the Minority Business Ordinance:
⚠️ Translation Notice: This content has been automatically translated. The original English text is the official version. Translation may contain errors.
⚠️ Este contenido ha sido traducido automáticamente. El texto original en inglés es la versión oficial. La traducción puede contener errores.
Findings and Recommendations 7 findings
F1
In passing the Ordinance, the Board has relied only on disparity studies (or other statistics) and anecdotal evidence to establish that the City has actively or passively discriminated against MBE/WBEs, and not on evidence of actual incidents of discrimination by the City.
Related Recommendations (2)
R1
The Human Rights Commission should comply with the Minority Business Ordinance by recording instances of discriminatory conduct by the City. If it cannot demonstrate instances of discrimination by the City, the Board of Supervisors should consider alternatives to renewing the MBE/WBE ordinance, such as instituting a local economically disadvantaged business enterprise program.
R1c
may be stored and retrieved for statistical and reporting purposes.
F2
There exist no records or evidence of specific incidents of discrimination that identify wrongful conduct by the City. There exist no documents that describe discriminatory 10 conduct by the City. There exist no documents describing what the City has done to remedy any supposed discriminatory conduct.
Related Recommendations (1)
R2
All HRC functions related to post-award contract compliance should be transferred to the Office of Contract Administration.
F3
It is difficult to rectify wrongful conduct without knowing what that conduct is. HRC has not done so although discrimination in City contracting purportedly has occurred over and over, year after year, for 19 consecutive years.
Related Recommendations (1)
R3
Price quotes given by available MBE/WBEs exceed competitive levels beyond amounts attributable to costs inflated by the present effects of discrimination. (Sec. 12.D.A.(17)E-G.) Enforcement Provisions • If the Director has reason to believe that a contractor, acting in good faith, has failed to comply with “the race and/or gender-conscious requirements” of the Ordinance, she notifies the department that awarded the contract, and attempts to resolve non-compliance issues through conciliation. If the conciliation process fails, the department may impose sanctions against the contractor, which might include: 9 a) refusal to grant the award of contract; b) an order suspending the contract; c) an order withholding funds; d) an order revising the contract due to material breach, or e) disqualification from eligibility from City contracts for a period not to exceed five years. (Secs. 12D.A.9(A)(7), 12D.A.16(B).) • In cases in which the Director believes that the contractor has acted willfully and in bad faith in failing to comply with the Ordinance, she may, after an investigation and hearing, impose sanctions for violations that may include: a) declaring the contractor non-responsive and ineligible to receive the award; b) declaring the contractor ineligible to bid on City contracts for a five-year period; c) revoking the certification of the business if it is an MBE/WEB, or d) assessing liquidated damages, pursuant to a liquidated damages clause that is present in each contract awarded under the ordinance. (Secs. 12D.A.16(C), 12D.A.9(D)(3).) D. The City Works Actively To Combat Discrimination and Remedy the Past Effects of Discrimination. • In addition to the creation of the HRC itself, the City has established other programs to foster the participation of minorities and women in City contracting. Among these steps are: o A financial assistance program to enable small firms to obtain bonding o Community outreach on an ongoing basis o Pre-bid conferences at which MBEs/WBEs can meet prime contractors and learn about City procedures o Administrative proceedings when bad faith or non-compliance is suspected o Audits by the Controller to identify any contractor’s failure to comply with the Ordinance o Adjusting bid bonding and insurance requirements where appropriate o Providing technical assistance to MBEs/WBEs to increase their ability to compete effectively for City contracts o HRC and Controller cooperation to create a system for prompt payment to MBEs/WBEs o Inviting joint ventures to promote MBE/WBE participation.
F4
Without documentation it cannot be determined whether the underutilization of MBE/WBE contractors reflected in the disparity studies is attributable to discrimination by the City, or rather is attributable to non-discriminatory causes such as lack of availability, lack of capacity, lack of funding, lack of interest, waiver, lack of insurability, or other causes.
Related Recommendations (1)
R4
if the failure to achieve the goals was at all due to the conduct of the department head, project manager, or any other City employee, or any contractor employed by the City, an identification of the person involved, a description of the conduct at issue, the remedial steps taken, and the impact of such conduct upon MBE/WBE participation, or the goals set for such participation. 1d. The City should establish a software program in which the data recorded under Recommendation 1c may be stored and retrieved for statistical and reporting purposes.
F5
Although the courts accept disparity studies to support an inference of discrimination, without identifying and discovering the cause of the actual instances of discrimination purported to occur by the City, the problem will not be solved.
No recommendations for this finding
F6
The HRC’s explanation for the lack of any records of instances of discrimination by the City – that it successfully resolves discrimination through conference and conciliation – is inconsistent with the assertion that the City continues to discriminate. If the HRC is able to prevent discriminatory conduct from adversely affecting MBEs/WBEs, then it is natural that there would be no records of discriminatory conduct by City officials. If, however, the HRC believes that discrimination persists, then its failure to record instances of discrimination is less understandable.
No recommendations for this finding
F7
If utilization of MBE and WBE contractors is so low (for example, 22% of the goals set by the HRC), a discriminatory cause should be easy to discern and substantiate if one exists.
No recommendations for this finding