• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Relevance to 2005?

Help Support Ranchers.net:

Mike

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 10, 2005
Messages
28,480
Reaction score
0
Location
Montgomery, Al
(Milwaukee Mayor) Barrett signs slavery disclosure measure
Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel ^ | TUESDAY, Dec. 20, 2005, 10:17 a.m. | Greg J. Borowski

Posted on 12/20/2005 9:13:25 AM PST by smithone

Any companies that get contracts with the City of Milwaukee will now have to file paperwork disclosing any past ties to or profits from slavery, under an ordinance signed this morning by Mayor Tom Barrett.

The measure, sponsored by Ald. Michael McGee, passed the council last week on a 12-3 vote. Milwaukee is one of a handful of large cities, including Chicago and Detroit, with such a requirement.

In other cities, the requirements have mainly affected banks and financial institutions, ones that over time bought out or merged with companies that had banks in the south. In many cases, large companies, such as Wachovia Corp. and J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, have already researched the matter.

Firms that were founded after 1865 will have to simply file a form saying they have no ties to slavery.

Barrett said the measure “recognizes the sensitivity of slavery in our country’s history … and at the same time does not hamper commerce in our community.”

The measure does not forbid contracts with companies with slavery ties. However, if a company fails to disclose any such ties it stands to lose the contract.

Barrett was joined by Aldermen Bob Bauman and Joe Davis at the bill signing news conference. McGee did not attend. Barrett chief of staff Patrick Curley said all aldermen were invited, something that was done by e-mail.
 

Steve

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 13, 2005
Messages
16,547
Reaction score
0
Location
Wildwood New Jersey
The measure does not forbid contracts with companies with slavery ties. However, if a company fails to disclose any such ties it stands to lose the contract.

No, it just adds another layer of red tape to the regulation compliance costs that are passed to the Taxpayer in higher contract costs..........
 

Latest posts

Top