Minutesfor November 17, 2015 Meeting

Minutesfor November 17, 2015 Meeting

Present:

Mary Page Bailey, (Counsel)

Paul Beane, (DelARF)

Ava Briggs, (Assistant to the Commission)

Ty Case, (Member)

Thomas Cook, (DelARF Ex-Officio)

Dobbins Doyle, (Vice Chair)

Debbie Harrington,(Madam Chair)

Brendan Kelly, (Public)

Detective Margret O’Bara (Guest Speaker)

Chuck Wagner, (Member)

Dean Stotler, (GSS)

Absent:

Jayson Crouch, (Member)

Dan Madrid, (DVI Ex-Officio)

Michele Mirabella, (Member)

Valerie Watson, (Member)

Mrs. Harrington called themeeting to order at 2:05 p.m.

Approval of the Minutes

Debbie Harrington asked the Commission to review two sets of Minutes; October 27, 2015 and November 9, 2015. Thomas Cook mentioned a correction to the October 27, 2015 Minutes; he was marked present, but was not present at this meeting. Correction noted. Chuck Wagner motioned to approve the Minutes; Ty Case seconded; all are in favor to approve the Minutes with one correction; none opposed, none abstained. October 27, 2015 Minutes are approved.

Debbie Harrington asked if there was a motion to approve the November 9, 2015 Minutes. Dean Stotler motioned for the Minutes to be approved. Chuck Wagner seconded; all are in favor to approve the Minutes; none opposed, none abstained. November 9, 2015 Minutes are approved.

Old Business

Dean Stotler asked Madam Chair for a point of order, which was granted. Mr. Stotler stated he had not received the first Memorandum for the November 9, 2015 meeting for the first vote of the set asides; this processrequires notice for his office to begin working on set asides. It was noted that the letter had been created and would be printed for signature and sent to Dean Stotler’s office after the meeting.

Background Checks; Presenter Detective Margret O’Bara

In order for an individual to work in the state buildings they must go through the process of a State Bureau of Identification (SBI) check with fingerprints to identify they are who they are claiming to be. These results are sent to the vendor and the Detective also receives a copy. The Detective then does a check for criminal history and background in two systems; the Delaware system;DELJIS; and the National Data Base; NCIC. There are a few disqualifying factors for individuals to be denied: felony offense convictions, and significant criminal history (which includes violence, theft, and any crimes of a sexual nature). She reviews those and makes a determination as to whether the person would be allowed in the state building, and then submits her recommendations to Doug Minner, Chief of Maintenance Operations. Mr. Minner then contacts the vendor with the decision of approval or denial. Dean Stotler asked if there are any facilities where there is not a ban based on the person’s history or is there an absolute ban on the above mentioned offensive. Detective O’Bara stated the buildings that she controls fall under this process, but thatshe is aware of other state buildings that do not operate like this. Sheis working with DelARF and MidAtlantic for them to be in compliance with the process. Up until a year and a half ago the procedure that was put in place had not been followed. Dean Stotler mentioned the understanding of Executive Order 42, and the time that has passed for individuals’ restoration of rights;also;ban the box issues that were worked on collectively as a state. For example; an individual convicted with athird degree assault back in 1970, but has had zero contact with law enforcement since then would be disqualified without further review. Mr. Stotler then asked the following:

Is this a state policy ban or a judgement call?

At what point does the building occupants or owner makes those decisions?

Is it an all or nothing procedure?

He stated that these are the concerns the Commission wrestles with regarding respect to the eligibility of individuals that would fall into this category which the Commissionstrives to helpthem find employment. Detective O’Bara agreed, but stated that the Board would need to understand that when issuing clearance to a government building for individuals with a criminal background who would have access to areas the public does not have access to with sensitive information is a security risk. It was noted that cleaning crewshave access to these areas when no one is in the building or very few people are in the building, andpeople do not pay attention to what housekeepers do when on the premises. This is a security breach and raises the questionof trusting a person that has a record. Detective O’Bara recalled an instance in another state where gang members were hired through a janitorial service and had access to clean the Court House. These are the things that can happen and need to be avoided.Detective O’Bara stated that she does not want to be the person that has to sit down with someone’s family and explained why their family member was attacked by someone with a record, and why this person was in the building alone in a secure area with known offenses. She understands that this is not a fool-proof process or 100% guarantee. There was an incident at Legislative Hall where someone had stolen something and they did not have a record. She wants to do the best that she can to make sure that everyone is secure and safe that enters the building;that is her job and responsibility. Debbie Harrington asked her about the unfettered access to certain areas and is that so when everything is mostly electronic and not paper files any more. They would have to get on a computer to access those records. Usually these employees are in the buildings at night when the employees are not present. Normally they are there with supervisors and are not alone. When you talk about significant criminal history, how are you making the decision about someone having access; is it realistic to say they have unfettered access?

Detective O’Bara used the example of DMV. DMV still has paper records and everywhere in the state they have paper records. For instance, DMV has temporary license plates and access to stock that is used to make licenses plates.You cannot say that the person does not know how to get into a computer. There are plenty of employees that have their passcodes on their computers or around their desk. Detective O’Bara mentioned a person working in the Tatnall building and she has been working for at least six months and she has yet to see a supervisor present. Detective O’Bara stated that she has met this individual and is comfortable with her access; however, there was another individual that did not go through the process and was denied access because of his background. The agency did not send his background check to her and they just started him working. She is aware of everyone that should be working in her building and questioned who he was. She denied access to him because of the process not being followed. They had given him a swipe card from someone else and that is how he got into the building. Thomas Cook was aware of this incident and took the necessary steps to take care of instances like that with the vendor. He asked about level tiers of security. For example, a place that has no documents or possibility of theft occurring that a level tier could be allowed access. Detective O’Bara said that would not work, because if a person working in a way station are on this level tier and they don’t have access to Legislative Hall, but the vendor is short on staff, the vendor may send that person over to Legislative Hall and there is no way to keep a track of who is on a tier 2 and who is on tier 1. Thomas Cook asked about different color badges that would distinguish the two tiers. Detective O’Bara stated if a card is issue they have been through the process. She further stated it is difficult to keep a track of people with different color badges. Vendors have even violated security protocol by giving another person’s access badge to someone so they could work. She does not trust the vendors to follow this process if they are in need of a worker to work in another building that does not have proper access. She does not feel a tier 2 badging system would work as it is more complicated.

Dean Stotler asked how many people are turned away verses the ones that are allowed through with this process. Detective O’Bara stated that there have been 137 screenings since March 2015 for DelARF and MidAtlantic and there were 13 denials for janitorial. The process to validate rechecks on individuals is not currently in the contract, but they are looking to put it in the contract to be done every 3 – 5 years. Thomas Cook mentioned that there had been people that were working on jobs that had not gone through the initial process when they started and were checked after the fact. These individuals had been working for a few years when they were checked and something came up on their background check. Detective O’Bara remembers that there were two individuals working in New Castle that had not been screened and had been working for three months that were denied. Dean Stotler stated that while the custodial staff is held to this standard the actual state employees are not subjected to any background check. The Commission’s concern is how we create the opportunity for people with disabilities without causing a barrier to employment since we can’t use the tier system through risk assessment.The question would be why state employees are allowed access to these same areas, but are not screened that same way. This is where the policy commences from the Human Resources aspect regarding Executive Order 42 and the Taskforce looking at criminal background checks in both employment and contractors to determine re-entry into the workforce andthe ban the box. Detective O’Bara stated that she could not speak for all state agencies, but she had an extensive background check done since she is a police officer. It is not just janitorial staff that goes through this process; the same process applies for employees or contractorswho want to work in Legislative Hall, the Tatnall Building, and the Supreme Court; they all have to go through a screening. If someone wanted to work on the heating system in any of these building they have to go through a background check in order to work in the building. Chuck Wagner asked how long is the process for background checks and the cost of the background check. Detective O’Bara stated 15 working days from the time she receives their information to let them know if they are approved or denied. She does the background checks so it is the cost of her time normally as part of her duties. Paul Beane clarified further that when the Detective receives the SBI she has 15 working days to approve or deny, but the SBI cost is usually taken care of by the employee or vendor depending on the policy of the vendors. The typically cost is $62.50. Debbie Harrington asked Detective O’Bara if she is the person that makes the decisions for those that have significant criminal history. Detective O’Bara stated that SBI does the fingerprint check to verify that they are who they are saying they are. Once she receives the information, she then does the national check and Delaware check to further determine any criminal history.

Thomas Cook mentioned that the Detective does not do a background check until she receives the SBI from the vendor. However, Detective O’Bara stated that she met with DelARF and agreed that she will do the criminal background as long as they have a receipt that they have paid for the person’s background check at SBI. This will help them with the timeframe to get the person started. Even though she is doing this parallel to the SBI check she cannot grant them access until the SBI comes back. Thomas Cook asked if the passage of times on a criminal background could have any significance in the decision. Detective O’Bara stated if the person has a felony charge they are banned even if the offense was 30 years ago unless the charge has been expunged. Misdemeanors are checked and determined on a case-by-case basis. Debbie Harrington asked if the Detective has a written Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) that tells the Commission the procedures and process of what is considered when evaluatingthose that will be denied or approved. Detective O’Bara stated that the department does has a SOP, but that she would have to check with her Supervisor to determine if she is allowed to share it with the Commission, as this is an internal policy/procedure. If she can share it, she will send it to Ava Briggsto disseminate to the rest of the Commission. Thomas Cook stated that having the document would be helpful to take back to the Joint Sunset Committee (JSC). The JSC has questioned aged felony offenses. Detective O’Bara stated that she has known about this policy or process for about two years now and confirmed that a person will be denied every time if they have a felony regardless of how long it might have been. Chuck Wagner asked if there are any changes that will be made to the process with the new contract. Detective O’Bara stated there would be no changes to the process except what was discussed about rechecks for those that have already been employed to be rechecked every 3 - 5 years. Brendan Kelly, Member of the Public, asked if the Detective has run the Department of Justice sex offender checks and if not, what type of sex offender check does she run for background checks? Detective O’Bara stated that she does not run a sex offender check;she only looks at criminal histories. She only checks criminal histories from the National and Delaware’s system which means that the person had a record. Brendan Kelly asked if there was a system that did up-to-date information on sexual registry. Detective O’Bara did not know if there is a system like that here in Delaware. With no further questions, Detective O’Bara was excused from the meeting. Debbie Harrington stated that she will work on the recommendations for JSC for December. She planned on addressing the 2 tier process and rechecks. Dean Stotler supports background rechecks, but he is not necessarily in agreement with the tier system for operational reasons and cost. He has a concern with aged offenses and absolute bar of a person to work. He would like to discuss a process similar to what is done atProfessional Licensing. If a person has servedtheir sentence, it is not an automatic bar to license. He is not sure if by asking the state if it is cost prohibited or problematic from an operational standpoint for a small subset of the population that we want to serve for a better option to create some discretion with this matter;especially since the number reported for denials has been 13 out of 137. Thomas Cook stated that some data is missing since this data was for the janitorial services, but not the whole of job opportunities at temporary agencies that have been subject to this process. In addition, the vendor will run a commercial background check in order to ascertain hiring an individual for a specific job. Debbie Harrington does not feel that number will be able to be captured if the vendor disqualifies people before getting to the Detective’s background check. Dean Stotler believes that Mr. Cook is right in the case of the subcontract they may do a quick commercial check and decide from there if they want to work with a person. On behalf of the screening process the percentage or number would be hirer if the subcontract already denies the person an opportunity for employment. Thomas Cook stated Goodwill does a pre-screening toavoid training people who will not qualify because of their background. The JSC wanted to know the impact on a whole not just janitorial.What prompted them to ask was a person at the hearing stated being let go for an aged conviction. JSC asked the Commission how many through the State Use Law program arebeing barred that has aged convictions.For example, someone convicted in 1970 and has had no further contact with law enforcement. Or, an individual where, at that time, mental illness might have played a role in why they were convicted, but with time they have been rehabilitated, but the conviction bars them automatically as Detective O’Bara stated from employment. The subcontractor feels it is not cost effective to train someone that will be denied. Doyle Dobbins commented to ask Goodwill about their screening process for clarity as well. Are people being made aware of Expungement and Pardon procedures and given information to inform people how to go about this process to get them through so that they can be employed?