NORTH CHARLESTON — The city of North Charleston’s program to assist small businesses that are minority-owned might see changes after the U.S. Supreme Court’s recent affirmative action decision to end race-conscious college admissions.
The goal of the Small, Disadvantaged, Minority Business Program is to encourage more contracts between the city and local businesses making under $500,000 annually. The program, which started in 2017, has nearly 45 approved vendors, but the city only uses about a handful of the businesses for services such as landscaping, plumbing and drug testing.
The program accepts any small business making below the threshold regardless of if it is minority owned, but the program’s intent was to increase diversity in the procurement process, said Councilman Ron Brinson, who chairs the finance committee.
However, it is unknown if any changes need to be made to this program after the Supreme Court’s decision to remove race as a factor in college admissions.
“I suspected at the time of the (Supreme Court) issue that it was not going to be long until somebody connected the dots from this college admissions realm over to this contracting realm,” said Derk Van Raalte, an attorney with the city of North Charleston who brought up the topic at the July 20 finance committee meeting.
A recent letter signed by South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson, along with 12 other attorneys general, reiterated how the high court’s decision to remove race-conscious admissions from higher education plays a role in hiring practices. The letter was addressed to Fortune 100 CEOs and reminded employers that race cannot be a factor in hiring employees or contractors. It came out two weeks after the Supreme Court’s decision.
While the letter was not sent directly to the city of North Charleston or even addressed to municipalities, city officials wanted to make council aware of this opinion signed by Wilson.
The letter stated: “Such overt and pervasive racial discrimination in the employment and contracting practices of Fortune 100 companies compels us to remind you of the obvious: Racial discrimination is both immoral and illegal. Such race-based employment and contracting violates both state and federal law.”
When The Post and Courier directly asked the Attorney General’s office about the affirmative action decision in relation to small-business programs, the office released the following statement:
“While Attorney General Wilson applauds the Supreme Court’s ruling in the affirmative action decision and agrees with the position in the letter, each situation has to be determined on its own facts. The facts of one case are not always the same for another and the same legal argument may or may not apply.”
The city’s program does not designate quotas for a certain percentage of minority-owned contractors, nor does it pick and choose contractors based on race. However, city leaders discussed that using “minority” in the name of the program might be an issue.
“My concern is they’re going to come back and hit us for how our program is titled,” Denise Badillo, procurement director, said at the meeting.
The city of Charleston and Charleston County both have programs that help small or minority-owned businesses compete in the public procurement process.
The city of Charleston’s Minority and Women-Owned Business Enterprise certification is for businesses with $7.5 million in gross revenue. These businesses include events management, general construction, engineering and consulting services.
The county’s Small Business Enterprise program accepts businesses that do not exceed a $7.5 million annual gross sales volume averaged over three years and includes construction, demolition, hauling, architecture and engineering services.
Badillo said the goal of North Charleston’s program is to help local businesses receive contracts for smaller jobs since the city uses these other programs to award large contracts.
But she said the $500,000 gross sales limit resulted in little interest in the program despite outreach efforts.
“We were thinking it was time to update it a little bit because it is a small dollar amount and we do not have a lot of participation,” Badillo said.
The reason for discussing the program at the finance committee meeting was to provide an update and talk about solutions to make the program more successful, said Badillo. However, the conversation centered on the potential impacts of the letter and the Supreme Court’s ruling.
“Coming out of the meeting, it’s my impression that we’re now trying to figure out what the attorneys general letter means and what changes would have to be considered,” Brinson said.
This content was originally published here.
