I certainly support and encourage giving previously convicted persons the right to resume earning a livelihood. Anything else is counterproductive and wrong. But I think removing the felony box is the wrong way to go about it; it simply encourages making decisions on a “let’s close our eyes and pretend” basis. Felony convictions are just as relevant as lying about work experience or education or having a bad driving record. We’d like to have the right to fire an employee who lies about those things on a job application, why not the same for felonies? It really doesn’t make much sense except as an exercise in political correctness.

I’m less worried about this and a bit more worried about the silence from County elected officials about one of their own and his violation of civil laws relating to harassing poor single parent women in the house rental market. Is there a box on county forms for that?

sorry. I miss spell check.

Applicants for jobs – all jobs – would not have a box to check that indicates whether they have been convicted of a felony (or misdemenor? I don’t know what the box currently asks). Right now, that box *discourages* applications from people who have been convicted but might still be eligible for jobs.

Before a job is offered, however, background checks are standard. The important change is that some jobs require different levels of security. All candidates being considered for a position will be screened equally; but some positions could be filled by candidates who have been convicted of felonies and have served their time. It would depend on the job, the applicant, and the crime for which they were convicted (I imagine we are talking about drugs or perhaps some crime of youth, but don’t want to speculate).

The idea that a person (who had been a violent criminal with anger issues) would be hired by the County or any other governmental unit *in ignorance, because they didn’t run a background check* is just not what I was hearing at the meeting. All applicants would undergo background checks. No one would be offered a job without a background check. If a background check disclosed a criminal record, the HR department would discuss the situation with the hiring unit and decide whether to go forward; they would then meet with the candidate and discuss the criminal history and its implications for the job. All of this would occur before a decision to hire.

As I understand it, people with felony convictions are often now kept from any consideration for any jobs. If they cannot work, they cannot pay rent, buy food, buy a car, buy a house . . . or do much of anything but commit another crime and go to prison. Not a pretty picture for our society.

Sabra

Job app disclosures in general have multiple purposes; one is to deter unsuitable applications, another is to make it possible to swiftly discharge people who turn out to have problematic pasts. Since it sounds as if the inclination is to minimize the number (and cost) of background checks, maybe a wiser and more narrowly tailored approach would be to require applicants to disclose certain classes of serious violent, sexual, or financial felonies.