ShareThis Page
Minority contracting: Paying lip service |

Minority contracting: Paying lip service


Talk about a cluster cluck.

Pittsburgh’s supposed dedication to helping minority and women contractors win city construction and procurement contracts might just be lip service.

As the Trib’s Bob Bauder reported on Tuesday, tracking efforts are shoddy at best. The mayor’s office isn’t on top of it. And neither is the city’s Equal Opportunity Review Commission, an office with six employees and a nearly $267,000 annual budget.

Oh, there are numbers, such as from a 2011 report that say Pittsburgh exceeded its goals of 18 percent minority and 7 percent female participation in contracts valued at $195 million. But critics have little faith in the numbers, considering they’re based only on let contracts with no follow-up.

And here’s the real kicker: EORC boss Phillipe Petite says the annual report never was meant to show actual participation, never mind the law. City Controller Michael Lamb is finding that the numbers don’t add up.

Some wonder if Pittsburgh has returned to the bad old days of two decades ago — “pass-through” contracts that made minority and women contractors paid-off “fronts” for others. Given the lack of accurate tracking, reasonable people could wonder if Pittsburgh never left those days.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.