Chappelle-Nadal Supports Funding for Disparity Study
Gov. Jay Nixon proposed the study in his State of the State address.
Photos
Sen. Maria Chappelle-Nadal, D-University City, today thanked Gov. Jay Nixon for including a $1-million appropriation in his proposed budget to fund a disparity study.
A disparity study will help determine what barriers exist due to discriminatory business practices that prevent minority and women owned businesses from participating in state contracts.
“If Missouri is going to invest taxpayer dollars towards improving our infrastructure, now is the appropriate time to ensure minority and women owned businesses in our state are allowed to compete for state contracts on a level playing field,” Sen. Chappelle-Nadal said. “Right now, we know that not all contractors in the state are getting a fair shake. And since the last disparity study in Missouri was completed in 1998, it is time to ensure that every business entity has the ability to succeed financially. This new data will help us determine whether minority and women owned businesses receive equal access to state contracts. As a member of the Missouri Legislative Black Caucus, the disparity study has been a longtime priority.”
Gov. Nixon included the funding for a new disparity study in his State of the State Address to a Joint Session of the Missouri General Assembly Monday evening.
To read the full text of Gov. Nixon's State of the State address, click here.
Roger Clegg
7:36 am on Tuesday, January 29, 2013
These disparity studies are just an attempt to justify preferential treatment, and why do race, ethnicity, and sex need to be considered at all in deciding who gets awarded a contract? It's good to make sure contracting programs are open to all, that bidding opportunities are widely publicized beforehand, and that no one gets discriminated against because of skin color, national origin, or sex. But that means no preferences because of skin color, etc. either--whether it's labeled a "set-aside," a "quota," or a "goal," since they all end up amounting to the same thing. Such discrimination is unfair and divisive; it breeds corruption and otherwise costs the taxpayers and businesses money to award a contract to someone other than the lowest bidder; and it's almost always illegal—indeed, unconstitutional—to boot (see 42 U.S.C. section 1981 and this model brief: http://www.pacificlegal.org/page.aspx?pid=1342 ). Those who insist on engaging in such discrimination deserve to be sued, and they will lose.
Billy Frank Thornton
1:42 pm on Saturday, February 2, 2013
As taxpayers, we deserve the best use of our public treasure. How incredible is public policy spending our funds in other than the best possible way. We live in a competitive society...those not able to compete on the basis of quality, should improve.