Miami-Dade Legislative Item
File Number: 111419
Printable PDF Format Download Adobe Reader  Clerk's Official Copy   

File Number: 111419 File Type: Resolution Status: Adopted
Version: 0 Reference: R-564-11 Control: Board of County Commissioners
Requester: NONE Cost: Final Action: 7/7/2011
Agenda Date: 7/7/2011 Agenda Item Number: 11A6
Indexes: REPORT
Sponsors: Audrey M. Edmonson, Prime Sponsor
  Barbara J. Jordan, Co-Sponsor
  Jean Monestime, Co-Sponsor
  Dennis C. Moss, Co-Sponsor
Sunset Provision: No Effective Date: Expiration Date:
Registered Lobbyist: None Listed

Legislative History

Acting Body Date Agenda Item Action Sent To Due Date Returned Pass/Fail

Board of County Commissioners 7/7/2011 11A6 Adopted P

County Attorney 6/24/2011 Assigned Hugo Benitez 6/24/2011

Economic Development & Social Services Committee 6/15/2011 2A Amended Forwarded to BCC with a favorable recommendation with committee amendment(s) P
REPORT: Assistant County Attorney Cynthia Johnson-Stacks read the foregoing proposed resolution into the record. Chairwoman Sosa acknowledged Commissioner Edmonson, Vice Chairwoman of the Board of County Commissioners, as the sponsor of this proposed resolution. Commissioner Edmonson expressed appreciation to Chairwoman Sosa for allowing her to address the Committee that morning. She read a statement into the record regarding the foregoing proposed resolution as follows: Commissioner Edmonson noted a piece of legislation, sponsored by her, to address the growing disparity in County contracts for goods and services, was before the Committee. She remarked that increasingly evident by a recent Gallup Poll, presentations before the County Commission (Commission), the businesses and constituents that she meets with, the high unemployment rate in Miami-Dade County, and insufficient data that the Office of Small Business Development tracks, there is a pressing need for the Commission’s intervention. The Commissioner noted the Commissioners’ constituencies are suffering, mainly those constituencies in their African-American communities. She said construction projects, road repair, paving, dredging, demolition, and other skilled and unskilled projects were taking place throughout the County; all one needs to do is to drive around and look, to see who is working. Commissioner Edmonson stated Miami-Dade County has rich and ever-growing, diverse population, and jobs that government creates should be reflective of this community. She also stated this County government, especially this body, should ensure that equitable employment exists in all sectors of government contracting, and notwithstanding in the face of potential legal challenges, sufficient data must accompany what is already known. Commissioner Edmonson noted in 2005, a pre-disparity study was conducted in Miami-Dade County; and in its findings, this County government failed to compile sufficient data as to the make-up of contractors, or their subcontractors, in a uniform manner. She advised that the firm suggested the County put mechanisms in place in order to collect the data needed for a disparity to be determined, and this very Board gave directives to the County Manager in 2009 to collect data on the race and gender of County contractors and their employees, for purposes of supporting a disparity study. Commissioner Edmonson noted to date, two years later, we find ourselves in similar or worse conditions than before. She noted she urges the Commission to support this legislation and address the disparity in our County, and the use of resources available to determine such findings; additionally, and more importantly, that this Board ensure a sense of justice and fair play is afforded to all residents of Miami-Dade County. She expressed appreciation and noted she would entertain any questions that those Commissioners present at the dais may have. Chairwoman Sosa asked Special Assistant to the County Manager Howard Piper to submit to her a report on the percentages of each ethnic and gender group residing in the County that was receiving County contracts. She noted, and Commissioner Edmonson agreed, that this resolution was only the first step in addressing the issue. Commissioner Moss noted that in the past, Black business owners were invited to participate in certain community programs, including owners of many construction, architectural and engineering firms, etc. He said after speaking with members of the community, whom he commended for helping frame these issues and members of the County Attorney’s Office, he was prepared to follow Vice Chairwoman Edmonson’s lead on this matter. In fact, Commissioner Moss noted, a number of black architectural and engineering firms were dissolved. He said for many years no case law existed to support the community programs; however, a recent court ruling in North Carolina justifies the reinstatement of these programs based on sufficient competent evidence. Commissioner Moss commended Commissioner Edmonson for her leadership in this initiative. Continuing, Commissioner Moss noted the recent court decision is encouraging and creates momentum for this community, noting members of this Commission have pushed efforts to reinstate these programs to the maximum, short of going to court. He noted by collecting the information needed to inform good decision(s), he believes it may be possible to reinstate some of those programs; to understand and benefit from lessons learned from the last process; and to ensure diversity and equality in County Government, going forward. Commissioner Bovo inquired regarding the cost and selection process for engaging MGT of America, Inc., a public sector management research firm mentioned earlier by Chairwoman Sosa, to perform the disparity study. Commissioner Edmonson clarified that no consultant had been selected yet to perform the disparity study; and that MGT performed a pre-disparity study. She clarified that this resolution directed the County Manager to submit a feasibility study to the Commission within 90 days of the adoption of this resolution, including the cost of performing a disparity study and a list of qualified consultants. Special Assistant to the County Manager Howard Piper requested that this resolution be amended to allow the County Manager with 120 days, rather than 90 days, to submit the feasibility study. Commissioner Edmonson agreed to amend this proposed resolution to require a feasibility study for a maximum 120 days from the effective date of the resolution, rather than 90, as requested by Mr. Piper. She noted, for the record, that the deadline for the feasibility study would not be extended beyond 120 days. Hearing no further dialogue, the Committee proceeded to vote on the foregoing proposed resolution with a favorable recommendation with Committee amendment(s) as follows: To revise Section 3. on handwritten page five to require that the Feasibility Report be submitted to the Board within one-hundred and twenty days (120) of the adoption of the resolution; and to include language in Section 3, directing the County Manager to include in the Feasibility study the percentages of each ethnic/gender group, within in the County, that was being awarded County contracts.

Legislative Text


WHEREAS, this Board wishes to assure that all segments of the County have a full, fair and meaningful opportunity to participate in County contracting regardless of race, gender or ethnic origin; and
WHEREAS, in furtherance of that policy, on June 19, 2001 this Board adopted Resolution R-730-01, directing the County Manager to engage a consultant to evaluate the County’s data in support of a disparity study of Black, Hispanic and Women owned business participation in County contracting[[,]]1>>;<< and
WHEREAS, pursuant to that resolution, the County engaged the services of MGT of America, Inc., a national public sector management research firm (“MGT”) to conduct an evaluation of the County data that could be used in support of disparity research[[,]]>>;<< and
WHEREAS, on March 4, 2005, MGT issued a final report evaluating the County data (the “Report”), concluding based on a sampling of County departments that there was no uniformity among County departments in the gathering of relevant data and severe limitations in data and record keeping, and that as a result no reliable or accessible data existed that would permit a reliable analysis which would support a disparity study (a description of the data limitations specifically identified in the Report appear as Exhibit 1 to this Resolution, hereinafter the “Limitations”); and
WHEREAS, the Report made specific recommendations to improve the availability and retrieval of data for purposes of supporting a disparity study, which appear as Exhibit 2 to this Resolution (the “Recommendations”); and
WHEREAS, on June 30, 2009, this Board adopted Resolution R-869-09 directing that the County Mayor or County Mayor’s designee collect data on the race and gender of County contractors and their employees for purposes of supporting a disparity study; and
WHEREAS, under applicable law, a disparity study is the first step to determine whether or not, and to what extent, programs to remedy racial, ethnic or gender discrimination will withstand judicial scrutiny,
Section 1. Consistent with this Board’s policy that all segments of the County have a full, fair, and meaningful opportunity to participate in County contracts regardless of race, gender and ethnicity, and to prevent public dollars being spent to promote any identifiable discriminatory practice, this Board wishes to explore the enactment of race, gender and ethnic based programs to remedy such discrimination.
Section 2. This Board is mindful that a lawful enactment of these programs must be supported by a strong basis in evidence that remedial measures are necessary. The Board is also mindful that those programs must be narrowly tailored to meet the legitimate purposes or redressing discrimination. The Board is further mindful that the Report identified certain deficiencies in the manner in which the County gathered and stored the data necessary to support those programs, and that the correction of those deficiencies may be extraordinarily time consuming and costly.
Section 3. The County Mayor or Mayor’s designee is hereby directed to make a report to this Board, within [[ninety (90)]]>>one hundred twenty (120)<< days of this resolution, with respect to the need, feasibility, and cost of such enactment (the “Feasibility Report”) which will at a minimum contain the following:
(a) A description of any and all steps that have been taken by the County administration to address the Limitations of the data relating to County contracting practices identified in the Report. For all Limitations that have not been corrected to date, a plan of action to correct such Limitations. Where the correction of a Limitation involves the expenditure of County funds, an estimate of the cost involved in correcting such Limitation.
(b) A description of any and all steps that have been taken by the County administration to implement the Recommendations made in the Report. For all the Recommendations that have not been implemented, a plan of action to implement those Recommendations. Where the adoption of a Recommendation involves the expenditure of County funds, an estimate of the cost involved in adopting the Recommendation.
(c) A description of all race neutral contracting, education and outreach programs that have been adopted by the County in the recent past, [[and]] an evaluation of the participation and measurable results of those programs, including but not limited to the County’s SBE, CSBE and CBE programs[[.]]>>, and a description from available data of the percentages of County contracts being awarded to each racial, ethnic and gender group.<<
(d) Recommendations for areas of contracting, or particular departments, for analysis and study, where the data would be more readily accessible and usable, including an analysis of the nature and quality of the data available for study, the suspected presence of disparity in contracting in that particular segment, and the cost and time effectiveness of researching that contracting segment.
(e) An estimate of costs of the disparity study with appropriate assumptions and identification of any outside consultant service deemed necessary to accomplish the intent of this resolution;
(f) Recommendations for the adoption of any further legislative measure necessary or appropriate to accomplish the intent of this resolution.

1 Committee amendments are indicated as follows: words stricken through and/or [[double bracketed]] shall be deleted, words underscored and/or >>double arrowed<< constitute the amendment proposed.

Home  |   Agendas  |   Minutes  |   Legislative Search  |   Lobbyist Registration  |   Legislative Reports
2016 BCC Meeting Calendar  |   Miami-Dade County Code of Ordinances   |   ADA Notice  |  

Home  |  Using Our Site  |  About Phone Directory  |  Privacy  |  Disclaimer

E-mail your comments, questions and suggestions to Webmaster  

Web Site © 2016 Miami-Dade County.
All rights reserved.