3/14/1995 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

boa 94 PnL Director Keating predicted the program would not require a substantial amount of staff time. Commissioner Eggert, strongly supportive of affirmative action, no discrimination, and true equal opportunity employment, said the sections of the document on Procurement Policies and Procedures and the Affirmative Action Policy seemed discriminatory to her and she wondered whether all of that had to be said. Buck Clark, president of Clark, Roumelis and Associates, the County's consultants on the CDBG program, briefed the Board on DCA and HUD policies with respect to minority and female hiring preference and emphasized that the County was required to set quantifiable goals. Commissioner Eggert reiterated that the way it was worded seemed very discriminatory, and Mr. Clark allowed that she was not the first elected official to make that comment. Administrator Chandler reviewed the County's policy which was more generalized in nature and non-discriminatory, but lacking in mandated quantifiable goals. He summarized staff's consideration of the program and indicated they were cognizant of the current nationwide debate on reverse discrimination. Nevertheless, quantifiable goals are a specific requirement when pursuing CDBG grants. Discussion ensued on discrimination issues. Commissioner Bird shared Commissioner Eggert's concerns, but, after having recently spent time with Deputy County Attorney Will Collins, wanted to broaden the concerns to include ramifications for the future. He asked Attorney Collins to express any trepidation he felt. He also opposed the County Administrator being the point man for all discrimination hearings and asked Attorney Collins to address that as well. Deputy Attorney Collins noted that, in making the application, the statement of assurances referred to 57 different Federal laws, Executive Orders, Treasury Circulars, OMB Circulars, and while he looked through the list, and read those available to him, he considered he could give assurances of compliance with about 6 or 7 and observed that it was impossible to comply with some simply because they were specific to State agencies. He speculated we might be in compliance with about 90% of those applicable to local governments; it was the other 10% that, at some later date, might be a problem. He was not too familiar with the Davis Bacon Act, since he believed it dealt only with contractors who received Federal money and the County has not done that. He understood that 22 March 14, 1995