Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Procurement Human Trafficking topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Committee accepts amendments to procurement bill requiring anti-human-trafficking certifications and sends measure to full council
Summary
The committee considered Bill 25-24, which would require bidders on covered county contracts to certify they have not been found in violation of federal or state human trafficking laws; the committee accepted three amendments narrowing scope and enforcement triggers and recommended the bill to full council for adoption.
The Government Operations & Fiscal Policy Committee considered Bill 25-24, which would amend Chapter 11B of the county code to require bidders on covered contracts to certify they have not been found to have violated federal or state laws against human trafficking and to include contract provisions requiring compliance and notifications to the Office of Procurement and the council.
"You'll notice in the packet there are a couple of amendments that we have in here that are really designed to fine tune and get us the precision we need," said Council member Lukey, the bill's lead sponsor, thanking procurement staff and the county attorney's office for their work on the draft.
A staff presenter summarized the bill's core requirements: bids and proposals would need a certification that the bidder has not been found to have violated human trafficking laws; if a charge, finding or conviction later arose, the contractor would have to notify the Office of Procurement and the director could pursue enforcement depending on adjudication.
Staff member Gorzalek then outlined three proposed amendments the committee considered and accepted: delete an alternative definition of "contract" so the provision relies on Chapter 11B's existing definition; expand the bill's application to include other contracts that meet the existing $100,000 regulatory threshold (not only invitations for bids or RFPs); and limit enforcement obligations so the Office of Procurement would not be required to take administrative enforcement steps in response to mere allegations or charges but could act when there is a finding from an administrative or judicial body (including clarifications tied to subtitle 4 of state labor and employment law).
Committee members offered supportive remarks. One committee member said the measure was "absolutely the right thing to do," and another called it "no brainer legislation." Without objection, the chair stated the committee recommends the bill to the full council for adoption; the transcript does not record a roll-call vote.
The committee accepted the three amendments and forwarded the revised measure to the full council for consideration. The record shows no formal vote tally in committee; the next procedural step is full council consideration.
