Nthanda Cenot

I support your proposal to add an additional paragraph to § 26.67(b), however your examples – “demonstrates an ability to accumulate substantial wealth, has unlimited growth potential, or has not experienced or has not had to overcome impediments to obtaining access to financing, markets, and resources”, are much too ambiguous. Use of these examples would further muddy the waters of eligibility by valuing feelings and opinion over quantitative analysis. I favor the suggestion of a bright-line, numeric approach. Having a tool to rule out otherwise “wealthy” individuals has become absolutely necessary as the lack thereof has made a mockery of the concept of economic disadvantage. Along those lines, there should also be a requirement for recipients to review the individual and business tax filings of each member of a couple (disadvantaged or otherwise) that are part of state-recognized union. There is no such thing as the poor wife of a wealthy husband, although these wives are certified routinely as economically disadvantaged individuals. It seems to me that adding the sentence, “assets transferred by that individual to an immediate family member that are consistent with the customary recognition of special occasions, such as birthdays, graduations, anniversaries, and retirements” would be doing more harm than good. If a supposed disadvantaged owner is actually giving enough money to a family member to put a dent in their PNW, the IRS will tax the gift accordingly. If money is given to their spouse, it should be accounted for in PNW. If it is given to a non-spousal family member, then the money is not theirs anymore. Giving money to a family member in order to meet the PNW requirement of the DBE program would be a very dumb thing to do.