| Viewing Single Post From: Blog and Media Roundup - Tuesday, June 30, 2009 | |
|---|---|
| abb | Jun 30 2009, 04:43 AM |
|
http://heraldsun.southernheadlines.com/durham/4-1176730.cfm Legislator questions diversity provision By Ray Gronberg : The Herald-Sun gronberg@heraldsun.com Jun 30, 2009 Bookmark and Share DURHAM -- One of the General Assembly's top Republicans has questioned the constitutionality of a city charter provision that allows Durham officials to prod contractors to work in minority- and women-owned businesses. House Minority Leader Paul Stam, R-Wake, joined other GOP members earlier this month in voting against a bill that codified the City Council's right to delegate matters of contract administration to the city staff. The bill's wording tinkered with a 26-year-old charter provision that says the council, to "ensure equal employment opportunities" or "redress past discrimination," may establish minimums for the participation of minority- and women-owned businesses whenever it sends projects financed by public money out to bid. In a brief House floor debate, Stam said that the state constitution bars legislators from giving specific cities, towns and counties expanded authority to regulate "labor, trade, mining or manufacturing." Any rules affecting those things are supposed to be uniform across the state. The charter provision "obviously [affects] either labor or trade and it's just flat-out unconstitutional," Stam said in a later interview. "Whether or not anybody will do anything about it, who knows. People aren't picky about the constitution." The minority leader's complaint drew an immediate rebuttal on the House floor from Durham's senior legislator, Democratic state Rep. Mickey Michaux. The bill, he said, "does not have anything to do with trade," Michaux said, defending the bill. "It's simply a policy matter, Mr. Stam, where authority is given to the city manager." Sought by city officials, the bill passed its final tests last week by votes of 84-32 in the House and 46-0 in the state Senate. The modification was one of a couple city leaders asked Michaux and other members of the Durham legislative delegation to push through in this session to enable the City Council to give City Manager Tom Bonfield and his successors more decision-making authority over contract issues. Another bill wiped away a charter-dictated limit that dictated that the manager send all purchase contracts worth more $100,000 to go to the City Council for approval. The council can now set whatever limit on the manager's signing authority it wants. Stam said he hadn't heard any complaints, legal or otherwise, about Durham's efforts to encourage the use of minority- and women-owned contractors. But "just because somebody doesn't challenge something doesn't mean it's legal," he said, predicting that anyone who sued to overturn the program would win. "It just means it hasn't been challenged." Other GOP-linked observers, however, said a challenge appeared unlikely. "Who's the plaintiff?" said John Hood, president of the Raleigh-based John Locke Foundation. "I don't think anybody's going to step forward or sue on the principle of the thing." He added that the most likely way for a court case to develop is out of a dispute between program administrators and a contractor. City Attorney Patrick Baker couldn't be reached for comment on Monday. An expert at UNC's School of Government, David Lawrence, referred questions to a colleague, Joe Ferrell, who also couldn't be reached for comment. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of North Carolina several years ago invoked the same provision of the state constitution Stam referred to to convince the N.C. Supreme Court to wipe out local efforts in Durham, Orange County and the Wilmington area to act on job-discrimination claims. |
 |
|
| Blog and Media Roundup - Tuesday, June 30, 2009 · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers | |
2:17 AM Nov 28
