Larry L Davis 

1412 Fourth Ave. 

Jackson, MS 39023 

(601) 212-0297Cell 

(601)664-3530 Office 

(601) 355-0915 Home 

davisi3030@liotmail.com 

AIRPORT/ENVIRONMENTAL 

LAW,AGC-600 

March 2, 2010 

VIA First Class Mail and Facsimile 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part 16 Airport Proceedings Doclcet 

AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 . ' '"1 

^:—I 

Re: Part 16 Complaint; Larry Davis, Compliance Analyst v. The Jackson Municipal AirpOTt 

Authority 

c!5 

Dear Sir or Madam: 

I (Larry L. Davis) hereby withdraw my complaint forwarded on November 5, 2009 and 

entitled "Noncompliance Complaint and Whisleblowing Report Pursuant to The 

Protected Disclosure Act 26 of 2000 signed, February 16, 2000." The complaint lodged 

against the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority is being withdrawn in deference to the 

enclosed 14 CFR 16 Complaint I now submit. 

If you to contact me, I can reached via the numbers listed above, by email and via the 

U.S. Postal Service. 

Sincerely, 

Lany L. Davis 

C.c. Anthony W. Brown, External Program Manager, FAA Office of Civil Rights 
Larry L. Davis 

1412 Fourtfi Ave. 

Jackson, MS 39023 

(601) 212-0297^(601) 3SS-091S 

davisl3030@hotmafl.com 

February 26,2010 

VIA First Class AAall And Facsimile 

Office of the Chief Counsel 

Attention: FAA Part ]6 Airport Proceedings Docket 

AGC-610 

Federal Aviation Administration 

800 Independence Ave. S.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20591 

Re: Part 16 Complaint; Lany Davis, Compliance Analyst v. The Jackson Municipal Airport 

Authority 

Dear Sir or Madam; 

Pursuant to 14 C.F.R. Part 16, I Mr. Lany L. Davis (hereinafter "Complainant"), file this 

complaint against the administrative body of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority 

and its Board of Commisaoners the operator and sponsor of the Jackson Municipal 

Airport Authority (hereinafter "the Authority") alleging that the Authority is in violation of 

49 CFR Part 26, Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Department of 

Transportation Financial Assistance Programs, and 49 CFR Part 23, Participation of 

Disadvantaged Business Enterprise in Airport Concessions. All communications with 

respect to this complaint should be addressed to: Larry L. Davis, 1412 Fourth Ave., 

Jackson, MS 30203, (601) 212-0297, davisl3030@hotmail.com. 

The Complainant, an African American male is an employee of the Jackson Municipal 

Airport Authority in the position of Compliance Analyst and has been assigned the 

duties of Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Liaison Officer for both the concession and 

construction components (hereinafter "DBELO & ACDBELO") of the Authority In 

accordance with 49 CFR Transportation Subtitle A. Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation PART 23 & 26 - Participation By Disadvantaged Business Enterprises In 

United States Department Of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs. 
Larry L Davis v. JMAA 

The complainant has been employed at the Authority since February 2004 and served 

as the Authority's DBELO & ACDBELO from June 2006 until November 2008. As the 

Authority's DBELO & ACDBELO, the complainant was charged with implementing all 

aspects of the Authority's DBE and ACDBE programs. As the Compliance Analyst for 

the Authority, the Complainant is responsible for collecting data, preparing reports and 

monitoring compliance to the provisions of the Disadvantaged Business Enterprise 

(hereinafter "DBE") Program and the Minority and Women Business Enterprise Program. 

Assist in providing necessary information on these programs to contractors and vendors 

including making verbal presentations along with other duties associated with the DBE 

program. 

The Airport 

Jackson International Airport Authority (hereinafter "the Authority") is a public-use, 

medium-hub commercial-service airport In Jackson, Mississippi. The Authority owns and 

operates Jackson-Evers International Airport, and one other airport (Hawkins Field), and 

is the airport sponsor for the purposes of compliance with federal statutes, regulations, 

and grant assurances. In each of the fiscal years from 2006 through the present, JMAA 

received federal financial assistance under FAA's Airport Improvement Program 

(hereinafter "AlP") to finance in whole or in part the planning and development of the 

Jackson-Evers International Airport and HavAins Field. The AlP program is a grant 

program authorized by the Airport and Airway Improvement Act. 49 USC § 47101 & 

47107, et seq. As a recipient of Federal AlP funds, the Respondent is subject to all grant 

assurances, including the assurance to comply with the requirements of Title 49 CFR 

Parts 26 and 23, the DBE and ACDBE regulations of the U.S. Department of 

Transportation. 

Subject of the Compliant 

Matter of Compliance With Federal Obligations, the Administrative Staff of the Jackson 

Municipal Airport Authority and its Board of Commissioners fail to adhere to rules, 

regulations, grant conditions, written and implied grant assurances of signed financial 

agreements with the United States Department of Transportation ("U.S. DOT"), the 

Federal Aviation Administration ("FAA") under Airport Improvement Program 

(hereinafter "AlP"), and the Federal Transportation Authority ("FTA") grant assurance 

conditions. The alleged violations discussed in this compliant occurred from June 2006 

to the present and pertain to, but are not limited to, federal regulations A9 CFR Part 23 

and Part 26, sections §26.51, §26.13, §26.23, §26.25, §26.103 §26.109. 

The assurances contained in grant-in-aid agreements issued under the Airport and 

Airway Improvement Act of 1982 (AAIA), as amended, 49 U.S.C. 47101 et seq., 

specifically section 511 (a), 49 U.S,C. 47107(a) and (b). Section 505(d) of the Airport and 

Airway Improvement Act of 1982, as amended, 49 U.S.C. 47113. Obligations contained 

in property deeds for property transferred pursuant to section 16 of the Federal Airport 

Act (49 y.S.C, 1115). section 23 of the Airport and Airway Development Act (49 U.S.C. 

1723), or section 516 of the Airport and Airway Improvement Act (49 U.S.C. 47125). 

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8, Fed. R. Civ, P. 8(a)(2). Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 

1964 (Title Vll), as amended. 42 U.S.C. 5 2000e et seq. 

Page 2 of 6 
Lorry L. Davis v. JMAA 

49 CFR Par^ 26, section §26.25 What is the requirement for a liaison officer? You must 

have a DBE liaison officer, who shall have direct, independent access to your Chief 

Executive Officer concerning DBE program matters. The liaison officer shall be 

responsible for implementing all aspects of your DBE program. You must also have 

adequate staff to administer the program in compliance with this part. 

1. From June 2006 to October 2008. my name, Larry L. Davis, was used on legal 

and official documents as the DBE Liaison Officer ("DBELO") for the Jackson 

Municipal Airport Authority. The Complainant suii>mits that the 

administrative body, specifically the Chief Executive Officer Mr. Dirk 

Vanderleest and Chief Operating Officer Ms. Bonnie Wilson, repeatedly 

ignored any and all input (verbal and wnitten) from the DBELO. Mr. Larry L. 

Davis. I submit that much of that input (not in the least all) pertained to 49 

CFR Part 26, § 26.51 "What means do recipients use to meet overall goals?" 

2. As the direct result of the failure of the JMAA administrative body, the DBE 

program administered by the Authority is hot narrowly tailored specifically as 

it relates to goal setting on federal and state assisted projects and 

contracts. Goals established on federally and state assisted projects lacked 

the requisite findings to justify the percent of DBE participation. The 

Authority's project goal setting process cannot survive strict scrutiny 

standards. 

3. Arbitrarily establishing goals on every federal, state and local project let 

irrespective to annual goal accomplishment data, does not meet the 

definition of a narrowly tailored program that serves to address important 

and compelling governmental interest, JMAA goals established on projects 

from October 1, 2008 thru February 25, 2010 lack any substantial relationship 

to defined discriminator/ remediation objectives. The JMAA process for 

establishing goals on federal and state assisted projects is inconsistent and 

lacks a strong basis for implementation. 

4. As the JMAA Compliance Analyst, it was/is my job to track statistics, monitor 

compliance and ensure goal obtalnment. As the DBELO for JMAA from 

June 2006 to October 2008, it was my job to oversee the program, identify 

program strengths and weaknesses and to make procedural 

recommendations to the administration for policy adjustment and changes. 

Almost all of the recommendations submitted to the JMAA administrative 

body (in written form) by the Complainant, were completely ignored, 

resulting in race conscious goals being set on all projects AlP, State, and 

PFC. Race Conscious goals were set on every project let without regard to a 

coherent policy or any defi; litive goal setting methodology. 

5. I (the complainant) allege that all project goals established on federally 

funded projects and let from October 1, 2008 until February 25. 2010 

(construction and professional service) lack the due diligence and requisite 

findings to meet narrow tailoring requirements for goal setting, goal 

Page 3 of 6 
Larry L. Davis v. JMAA 

compliance and definitive DBE program administration. Ninth Circuit Court 

of Appeals decision in Western States Paving Co. v. State of Washington 

Dept. of Transportation, 407 F. 3d 983 (9th Cir. 2005], or consider: 

The U.S. Supreme Court Case, City of Richmond v. J. A. Croson Co., 488 U.S. 

469 (1989) Pp. 488 U. S. 498-506. JUSTICE O'CONNOR delivered the opinion 

of the Court with respect to Parts I, lll-B, and IV, concluding that: 

(a) A generalized assertion that there has been past discrimination in the 

entire construction industry cannot justify the use of an unyielding racial 

quota, since it provides no guidance for the city's legislative body to 

determine the precise scope of the injur/ it seeks to remedy, and would 

allow race-based decision making essentially limitless in scope and duration. 

The city's argument that it is attempting to remedy various forms of past 

societal discrimination that are alleged to be responsible for the small 

number of minority entrepreneurs in the local contracting industry fails, since 

the city also lists a host of nonracial factors which would seem to face a 

member of any racial group seeking to estabfish a new business enterprise, 

such as deficiencies in working capital, inabiiity to meet bonding 

requirements, unfamiliarity with bidding procedures, and disability caused 

by an inadequate track record. Pp. 488 U. S. 498-499. 

(b) None of the "facts" cited by the city or relied on by the District Court, 

singly or together, provide a basis for o prima facie case of a constitutional 

or statutory violation by anyone in the city's construction industry. The fact 

that the Plan declares itself to be "remedial" is insufficient since the mere 

recitation of a "benign" or legitimate purpose for a racial classification is 

entitled to little or no weight. Similariy, the views of Plan proponents as to 

past and present d/scrim/naffon in the industry are highly conclusory, and of 

little probative value. Reliance on the disparity between the number of 

prime contracts awarded to minority businesses and the city's minority 

population is also misplaced, since the proper statistical evaluation would 

compare the percentage of MBE's. 

No evidence is known to exist that demonstrates that the Jackson Municipal 

Airport Authority's governing body I.e. the Board of Commissioners by 

resolution, statue, ordinance or any other means provided public guidance, 

legislation or authority to implement the DBE goal setting program in the 

matter that it is currently being implemented. Additionally, there is no 

evidence that the governing body ever approved the annual goal for FY 

2010 that began in October 2009. 

I (the Complainant) believe that the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority has failed to 

comply with Its obligations under CFR 49, Parts 23 & 26. I (the Complainant) brought 

these issues to the attention of the Jackson Municipal Airport Authority's Board of 

Commissioners during May of 2008. A review ensued, recorded and sealed depositions 

were taken, ultimately resulting in a Director of DBE and Community Development 

being hired by the Authority. I (the Complainant) was assured by JMAA administration 

Page 4 of 6 
Larry L, Davis v. JMAA 

that issues and concerns raised by me would be addressed, as the new program 

Director was hired conversely, 1 (the Complainant), became convinced of the 

continuing course of the noncompliant conduct and violatfons of CFR 49, Parts 23 & 26 

in August 2009 while putting together data for the 2010 annual construction and 

concession goals, and no member of the senior staff or the administrative body was 

interested in viewing the 2008 or 2009 DBE accomplishments or statistical outcomes. 

The indiscriminate establishment of goals on all federal and state projects and 

contracts irrespective to goal achievement data is in direct violation of 49 CFR Part 23 

and Part 26, section, §26.13,(a). §26.7(b). §26.45(5)ii,§26.51(a)(2). The practice of 

haphazardly establishing race conscious goals on all projects indiscriminately, negates 

the provisions of a flexible scheme or flexible program implementation and imposes an 

unlevel playing field and undue burden on Non-DBB firms. This practice eliminates the 

legitimacy of a narrowly tailored program designed to overcome the effects of 

discrimination; in this environment, project goals are not adjusted to achieve annual 

approved goals as is required by law. While acting in the capacity and scope of the 

DBELO for the Authority, I (the Complainant) drafted many CFR 49 Parts 23 & 26 

compliant documents designed to correct this problem...all recommendations were 

ignored. Outside of my actions, there been has no attempt to review or visit internal 

DBE related policies or procedures to ensure compliance. 

This information was disclosed to The JMAA Board of Commissioners and again in this 14 

C.F.R. Part 16 filing in the interest of public concern. Browner v. City of Richardson, Tex. 

stated that ""the disclosure of misbehavior by public officials is a matter of public 

interest and therefore deserves constitutional protection." This complaint is squarely 

within Browner's domain: it addresses the negligence and improper behavior of public 

officials. Additionally, The United States Supreme Court set the parameters in Connick v. 

Myers. In Connick, the Court observed that speech concerning matters of public 

interest "is more than self-expression; it is the essence of self-government". Accordingly, 

speech by public employees on public issues "occupies the 'highest rung of the 

hierarchy of Rrst Amendment values." 

Rather than addressing the DBE program policy and procedure concerns raised by me 

(the Complainant), I (the Complainant), have been singled out and denied access to 

information and vital resources needed to effectively complete my assigned duties as 

Compliance Analyst as the direct result of my public assertions. 1 (the Complainant) 

have experienced adverse employment actions in retaliation for my bringing these and 

other issues to the attention of the administrative body and Board of Commissioners of 

the Authority. These and other adverse employment actions include vague, 

unsubstantiated, unachievable, imbalonced and wrongful employee performance 

evaluations. 

I (the Complainant) have experienced total isolation and disparate treatment i.e. 

being treated and compensated differently than other employees in similar positions 

within the organization. These adverse employment actions are unlawful and in 

violation of my (the Complainant) rights under federal regulations 49 CFR Part 23 and 

Part 26, sections §26.109. the Mississippi Whistleblower Laws Code Section 25-9-171, et 

seq. and my (the Complainant's) first Amendment rights and right to due process. 

Page 5 of 6 
Larry L. Davis v. JMAA 

Damaoes And Relief Requested 

By bringing forth this notice of complaint, I (Lany Davis) seek the following mandatory 

relief: 

1. I (the Complainant) am requesting the all my 2009 Perfomnance Appraisal 

records be expunged fi-om all Department records and files. 

2. I (the Complainant) am requesting that my merit solar/ increase for 2008 and 

2009 be approved, and ttiat I receive all additional money I would have 

received, plus interest, from the date of denial until the present. 

3. I (the Complainant) am requesting $25,000.00 in emotional distress damages 

as a result of the stress, anxiety, and depression that I experienced as a result 

of the above - listed retaliator/ actions. 

4. Remuneration of lost wages as a result of the failure to compensate 

commiserate with assigned duties, issuance of an injunction to enjoin the 

above-described retaliatory actions by the JMAA Officials irom occumng in 

the future. 

5. Payment of any and all attorney fees. 

Certification of Service 

I hereby certify that I have this day served the foregoing complaint on the Jackson 

Municipal Airport Authority, Attn: Mr. Dirk B. Vanderleest Chief Executive Office and Mr. 

George E. Irvin, Sr.. Chairman of the Board of Commissioners. Jackson Municipal Airport 

Authority. P.O. Box 98109,100 International Dr.. Suite 300 Jackson, MS 39298-8109, via 

Certified Registered Mail RRR (Return Receipt Requested) and Facsimile Transmission 

(601)939-3713. 

Date: March 2, 2010 By: 

Page 6 of 6