HUD Secretary Implies Contract Decisions Are Partisan

How to spell back-pedal?

On 28 April, HUD Secretary Alphonso Jackson -- a former Texas public official -- told a group of real estate executives, in effect, that if they weren't supporters of President Bush, they could forget about getting an HUD contract.

Jackson related the story of a minority contractor who had been unsuccessful at obtaining a contract for 10 years.

"He made a heck of a proposal and was on the (General Services Administration) list, so we selected him. He came to see me and thank me for selecting him. Then he said something ... he said, 'I have a problem with your president.'

"I said, 'What do you mean?' He said, 'I don't like President Bush.' I thought to myself, 'Brother, you have a disconnect -- the president is elected, I was selected. You wouldn't be getting the contract unless I was sitting here. If you have a problem with the president, don't tell the secretary.'

"He didn't get the contract," Jackson continued. "Why should I reward someone who doesn't like the president, so they can use funds to try to campaign against the president? Logic says they don't get the contract. That's the way I believe."

For what it's worth, it is illegal to discriminate on the awarding of a government contract for any political reason.

Jackson's office first said that there were no details, and then that the event never happened -- that it was merely anecdotal. Now Jackson says:

I deeply regret the anecdotal remarks I made at a recent Texas small business forum and would like to reassure the public that all HUD contracts are awarded solely on a stringent merit-based process. During my tenure, no contract has ever been awarded, rejected, or rescinded due to the personal or political beliefs of the recipient.

The Dallas Business Journal broke the story and has not let go:

Dustee Tucker, a spokeswoman for HUD, who attended the April 28 event and responded to media questions regarding Jackson's statements at the forum, is on leave. Brown says Taylor's leave had nothing to do with the way in which she handled the situation.

On May 3, Tucker told the Business Journal that the contract Jackson was referring to in Dallas was "an advertising contract with a minority publication," though she could not provide the contract's value.

On Tuesday, Tucker told the Business Journal and other media that Jackson's comments were purely "anecdotal," implying that Jackson made up the story to illustrate a point.

"He did not actually meet with someone and turn down a contract. He's not part of the contracting process," she said Tuesday.

So which version of the story do you believe? Me, I believe the unvarnished version -- ie, the first one.