MnDOT audit finds rampant trouble with women and minority contracting program

  • Article by: Jim Anderson , Star Tribune
  • Updated: September 23, 2013 - 4:41 PM

Program designed to give women- and minority-owned business a leg up is rife with problems, MnDOT finds.

  • 26
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
huggybear28Sep. 21, 1311:49 PM

An additional $6 million dollars is "excessive and unreasonable” to the taxpayers for a $52 million dollar project.

46
1
arspartzSep. 22, 13 7:02 AM

Why not just do what fiduciary responsibility dictates and award the con tract to he lowest competent bid? Stop social engineering with the taxpayers' money.

66
7
jim4848Sep. 22, 13 7:23 AM

After working construction for 40 years, I've noticed many minority contractors on jobs. I've seldom seen a minority working in the field for these minority contractors. To be a minority contractor should require at least 50% of the employees working for the company be minorities. Unfortunately with many of these companies the total participation of minorities are the owners.

51
5
clnorthSep. 22, 13 8:17 AM

Another attempt at social engineering that is costing taxpayers billions. When will the insanity end?

49
5
vwx909Sep. 22, 13 8:21 AM

I've watched this program for years, and labeling it dysfunctional is a complement. To me the emphasis should be on the hiring of minority workers, not DBEs. Put people to work on entry level jobs and some of them will start firms of their own. Contract a DBE and too many times it's just one minority owner, with very few minority workers, who benefits.

45
2
g5thistimeSep. 22, 13 8:23 AM

Yes, lets increase the "quotas". That has not worked since the city of Minneapolis started busing in the 70's. Why can't we call it what is is? Certain groups refuse to accept responsibility for anything and cry poor poor me. What's different in the women and minority contracting program, nothing. Lets settle for sub standard at the expense of public safety. Lets get the least best to show we are not racist. Lets get the company that has no track record so we can be judged as politically correct.

39
7
Geezer1976Sep. 22, 13 8:27 AM

WHERE do I even start? It seems as if the government is more concerned with the social program than in getting the best product at the best price. That sounds like corporate welfare. Ms. Prescott was reassigned - from a job that pays over 100K per year to ....a different job which also pays over 100K per year. Generally if one cannot perform their job, they get demoted or fired. And finally, how many "minority owned" or "women owned" companies are truly owned by minorities or women?? Since the beginning of this program the ownership aspect has been nothing but a joke. Wink Wink Nod Nod.

42
5
jbpaperSep. 22, 13 8:32 AM

When are non union companies going to be considered DBEs? I guarantee you will find a lot more women and minorities working on government projects than non union workers.

“Without those goals, we don’t get called to the table,” he said. “And that’s wrong.” ------ Even with those goals, non union companies aren't called to the table. How is that fair?

23
7
sharkysharkSep. 22, 13 8:43 AM

This is a game that contractors have played for decades to get government contracts. You put the wife's name on the letterhead as President and BINGO you are eligible for "minority-owned" status. Just like all affirmative action programs it tends to reward the crooks and screws the taxpayers.

42
3
kleindropperSep. 22, 13 8:53 AM

So much for equal protection. White males are second class citizens under these sham federal laws.

43
11

Comment on this story   |  

ADVERTISEMENT

Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT