May 23, 2005 might go down as the worst day for Missouri minority business owners since the Civil Rights Act passed 50 years ago.
A hearing is scheduled on that date in a Kansas City federal courtroom where a preliminary injunction requiring Missouri to drop a requirement that certain percentages of each state contract go to women- or minority-owned businesses could be made permanent.
The result of such a ruling would be “devastating,” according to Ivan James, founder of Ivan James and Associates, a products distribution firm.
“We fought real hard to get this (executive order), and there is a possible setback.”
James was among a number of minority business owners and operators who attended a forum on the Harris-Stowe State College campus on Friday hosted by state Reps. Amber Boykins (D-St. Louis) and Ted Hoskins (D-North St. Louis County) and the Missouri Minority Business Advocacy Commission.
On January 28, U.S. District Court Judge Gary Fenner of Kansas City issued a preliminary injunction in response to a lawsuit from a Colorado company. The late Gov. Mel Carnahan signed an executive order into law seven years ago that generally sets goals of 20 percent minority and 10 percent female participation in contracts for services, materials and construction.
Behavioral Interventions Inc. of Colorado sued, contending that the state denied it a contract because it did not meet a requirement that 30 percent of the total dollar value of the contract go to women- and minority-owned businesses.
Behavioral Interventions sought a $4.5 million contract with the Office of Administration to supply and service electronic monitoring devices for the state prison system.
The company testified it reached 19.6 percent women and minority participation, but the state insisted on 30 percent and gave the contract to another firm, the lawsuit said.
“As of January 28, we have been unable to place the goals in contracts,” said Marvin Eason, director of the state Office of Administration’s Office of Equal Opportunity.
“Where we go from here, we’re not sure.”
Kathy Conley Jones, president of the Conley Financial Group, wondered, “What truly are the abilities to get a change in the (injunction?) How successful can we be? What can we do?”
Joan Gummels, assistant attorney general, said that the office “is vigorously defending” the goals established by Executive Order 9821.
“The constitutionality of the order is what was challenged by Behavioral Interventions. The state must prove that it had a compelling interest to enact the order and that it is narrowly tailored to meet those ends. The state certainly had compelling interest to remedy past and current discrimination. Yes, the order is narrowly tailored because there is a flexible waiver procedure.
“The court made no specific finding about what it finds problematic. That, we don’t know.”
Gov. Matt Blunt is reportedly in support of the executive order, although he has not taken an active role in its defense.
“It has been indicated to me that (the governor) supports it,” Hoskins said.
However, no one in attendance said they had spoken directly with the governor on the subject.
Eric E. Vickers, activist and attorney, said governors of other states that faced similar lawsuits suspended the letting of all contracts until the matter was settled.
“Right now, minority-owned companies are out and contracts are still being awarded,” he said.
James said it would be hypocritical if Blunt does not wholeheartedly back Executive Order 9821.
“The governor was just in St. Louis celebrating Anetta Vickers and her company, T.A.B. It would be terrible to applaud on one hand and then take away the opportunity that could be applied to others who have not had the chance that T.A.B. had.”
