Thank you Mr. Chair,
I have three items I would like to present this evening.
First, I would like to address a comment made by Mr. Adolphus Pruitt regarding the Board of Trustees. He stated that because the Board of Trustees was not interested and refused to discuss his issues, he had decided to escalate his actions, including actions against the Board members and their business clients.
So the public can be fully aware of the situation, let me review the facts surrounding this statement. On May 14, 2015, Mr. Pruitt sent a letter to the Board of Trustees which included 28 allegations and statements against MSD. He requested that the Board of Trustees attend the next Oversight Committee meeting or subsequent meeting to discuss these issues.
On May 22, MSD sent a letter confirming receipt of his letter, acknowledging the start of the 60 day cure period as provided for in the CBA agreement, and committed to having Board members attend this next meeting.
On June 16, 2015, MSD forwarded the May 22 response letter via email, to Mr. Pruitt, regarding MSDs response to the information presented in Mr. Pruitt’s May 14, 2015 letter.
In the e-mail that forwarded the June 16th document to Mr. Pruitt, MSD identified the individual staff members who would be present at the next meeting and asked for a list of attendees Mr. Pruitt would have at the meeting. MSD also asked for recommended dates and times to meet. MSD received no response to this offer as of July 13, 2015, the end of the cure period outlined in the CBA agreement. MSD received no request to add the information presented in the May 14, 2015 letter, to the scheduled August 26, 2015 CBA meeting.
Finally, the August 26th meeting was cancelled, as requested by some of the CBA signatories. The offer to meet with representatives of the Board of Trustees and members of MSD staff to discuss these issues still stands. Mr. Pruitt was reminded of this sequence of events on Saturday, September 12, 2015.
I would also like to apologize to the Board for not being ready to respond in a timely fashion to the allegations made against the Board of Trustees on Thursday, September 10th by Mr. Pruitt.
Second, MSD is open and transparent about the continuing successes in its Diversity Program. Diverse vendor award results, by contract, are made available at the monthly public meetings held by MSD’s Board of Trustees. These monthly results are also posted on our website for anyone to reference. MSD’s Diversity staff reports quarterly on the status of actual diverse vendor work performed, as well as, the workforce participation by project. This is the same information that is shared quarterly as part of the CBA process.
MSD’s diversity program is large and has many moving parts. Director of Human Resources Vicki Edwards, Diversity Manager, Shonnah Parades, and their staff are available to review the status of program activities and results in their entirety; including field visits to demonstrate our program in action. Ms. Edwards and her staff continuously provide this service to individuals who would like a better understanding of the successes of MSD’s Diversity Program.
Finally, Mr. Chair, I will spend some time going over the safety issue that seems to be the main focus of Mr. Pruitt’s complaint. A lot of misinformation and false insinuations have been spread publically about this issue. Here is a simple factual run-down of events.
- As has always been our practice, MSD reviewed with stakeholders the new procedures to be put in place to implement the results of the Disparity Study. These meetings occurred between the completion of the Disparity Study at the end of 2012 through the issuance of the new procedures in August 2013.During that time, there was an issue raised repeatedly by a group of sewer construction contractors in reference to the safety issues involved with the immediate replacement of full time workers (regardless of race, gender, or any other demographics) on crews that normally number about 5 workers.To meet our goals, in some instances, full time crews would be required to immediately replace 3 out of the 5 individuals. Let me take a little time to discuss how dangerous it is to work on MSD’s projects, especially those that require the installation of open cut sewers:
1. Workers have to make sure there is enough oxygen in their workplace to survive.
2. The workers have to check to make sure the excavation they are working in and around is secure and stable and retrieval equipment is available and operational at a moment’s notice.
3. The workers have to look out for objects that could strike them upon dropping 20-30 feet or more.
4. The workers have to be aware of other utilities, whose location or disruption could cause them harm.
5. Finally, workers often times have to work on jobsites with active sanitary sewer systems.
Most of us who regularly work in an office setting cannot imagine what it would be like if every day you arrived at work, you had to check for breathable air, check to ensure the building walls were stable, make sure no one from 2-4 stories above you, dropped something on your head or be concerned about getting electrocuted when you started your computer and worrying about avoiding the pool of sewage in your cubicle.
In short, MSD worksites are very dangerous. I have not even yet mentioned the coordination required between workers on a crew when an operator or a trucker is working 20-30 feet above your head and are taking hand signals from a worker on top of a trench to make sure the worker at the bottom of the trench can get the work done safely.
To address these concerns regarding the dangerous working conditions, some of our contractors asked for assistance and MSD stated that it would temporarily allow full time workers to continue working on these types of projects, even if the crew make-up did not initially meet the workforce diversity goals.
However, MSD would continue to require further diversification of the work crews when openings occurred or when contractors expanded their workforce. At all times, staff expressed to the contractors and vendors who work with MSD, the importance of the workforce goals. As of today, MSD’s H.R. Department expects that 85% of the projects being tracked for minority workforce compliance are on target to meet those requirements by the end of the project.
A little over a year after the issuance of the new procedures in August 2013, staff examined changes to the program to address issues that needed attention. Ultimately 9 changes were identified. One of which was to stop allowing full time crews to not fully meet the workforce requirements.
Data showed that a majority of the contractors were making good progress towards diversification and MSD no longer felt this provision was needed. Staff first publically discussed these proposed changes along with 8 other changes to the program with the Board of Trustees at the quarterly Diversity update in December, 2014.
Staff began to fully develop the proposed procedure changes with the goal of having them ready by July 1, 2015. Ultimately, they went into effect on August 4, 2015. During this time, as MSD has always done, meetings were held with stakeholders to discuss the proposed changes. This included construction contractor groups and the CBA signatories.
Some comments have been made implying some kind of secret agreement between District staff and stakeholders. Nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Adolphus Pruitt and others have stated in public meetings and in the media, that the dangerous worksite concerns originally addressed by MSD were somehow a sign that MSD staff felt that minority workers were less safe. MSD has never made that statement. That idea has only been expressed by Mr. Pruitt and others outside of MSD.
At a meeting held with the St. Louis American newspaper on Thursday, September 24, 2015, MSD again explained that it would have the same concern about the inherent dangers on MSD worksites regardless of ethnicity or gender of the existing or new workers.
A comment was made at the September 24th meeting claiming that if a new worker on a project got hurt, so what? He was the one who wanted to do the work. That will never be the position of MSD.
MSD will always consider the health and safety of any worker – new or otherwise – to be of the utmost importance. Mr. Pruitt has also stated that MSD does not have to worry about playing HR manager for our stakeholders. MSD should just publish rules and let the stakeholders figure it out. That will also never be our position. MSD does not believe this is the way to implement a diversity program that is strong, sustainable, and builds partnerships within and serves the St. Louis community.
It seems that MSD’s diversity program is being used to try and address other issues and conflicts within the St. Louis community. MSD staff will not allow actions like these to keep us from continuously improving a program whose vision is to be the best in the St. Louis area.
Thank you Mr. Chairman, this concludes my report.