Rhetoric Versus Reality: The Equity Gap in Columbus City Schools Contracting

By Ronda Watson Barber
OhioMBE Publisher

While Columbus City Schools (CCS) often heralds its equity policy—a rule stating that at least 20% of district contracts should benefit disadvantaged businesses—the fiscal breakdown paints a contrasting picture. In the past year alone, of the $332 million spent by the district, a scant $8 million was allocated to Black vendors. Such a vast discrepancy not only undermines the integrity of the equity policy but also casts doubt on the district’s true commitment to it.

I’ve long argued against CCS’s convoluted vendor registration policy, which not only places undue burdens on vendors but may also violate Title IV of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.  This policy necessitates cumbersome procedures like providing general liability insurance and a W-9 form annually just to keep a vendor’s status “active.” Those deemed “inactive” are summarily removed from public lists, effectively sidelining them from potential contracts. Recent public records indicate that there are more “inactive” vendors than “active,” highlighting the systemic issues at play.

Years back, I proposed the creation of a freely accessible planroom for vendors, an idea that was met with unwarranted resistance. The reluctance to let the taxpaying public into “their space” only serves to perpetuate an exclusive vendor environment. The severed relationship between CCS and the Ohio Business Development Center (OBDC), triggered by less-than-cordial interactions with the predominantly white staff of Capital Improvements, only adds to the growing list of concerns. Where does this leave Minority Business Enterprises (MBEs) looking to access critical construction documents?

It’s perplexing that capital improvement projects are not advertised in OhioMBE, the state’s largest Black-owned business newspaper. Contrary to certain assertions, the refusal to collaborate with OhioMBE, rooted in our candid criticisms, harms Black vendors more than it impacts us.

We continue to receive troubling accounts from Black vendors who experience systemic racism and blatant biases when dealing with CCS. So, what’s being done? Why are the board and administration approving and forwarding legislation that glaringly omits Black vendors? With a tax levy on the horizon, why should these vendors support a tax hike when they’re habitually left out of the procurement process?

The road to genuine equity in CCS’s contracting is long and fraught with obstacles. Obstacles that could be be fixed. It’s not simply about fulfilling quotas; it’s about dismantling systemic barriers. Until CCS acts on its professed commitments, Black vendors have every right to be skeptical of the district’s dedication to true inclusivity.

just my thoughts…rwb