In recent years, even as Minnesota was considered a pioneer in ending the practice of asking job seekers about their criminal histories, it somehow was still posing the question to applicants for one class of job: appointments to state boards and commissions.
In 2009, Minnesota became the second state in the nation to prohibit public employers from including a criminal history question on initial application forms. In 2013, private employers were added to the law, a provision enacted with bipartisan support.
But neither bill negated a 2004 provision that makes one’s criminal history one of the first pieces of information solicited for appointments to state boards and commissions. That means that an applicant for a job processing income taxes in Minnesota doesn’t have to initially declare a felony conviction — but an applicant to be on the Board of Cosmetology does.
But earlier this year, the governor, the secretary of state, two state government commissioners and the prime sponsor of past so-called “ban the box” bills pledged to complete the effort. But no bill was introduced and no amendment was offered during the 2020 regular session of the Minnesota Legislature.
Now, as the Legislature begins a special session with equity and criminal justice reform at center stage following the homicide of George Floyd, most say the time has come, again, to build consistency in state law where ban the box is concerned.
“For many of us, many were surprised when that was brought up last year that that was the case. Banning the box is important,” Walz said Thursday. “It’s systemic … these are not peripheral issues, they’re really important. I would certainly encourage us doing that.”
An ‘easy win’ for special session?
While many of the state’s 234 boards and commissions are advisory or technical, the criminal background question also shows up on the application for boards that play significant roles in state government: the Public Utilities Commission, the Sentencing Guidelines Commission, the Police Officer Standards and Training Board and the Metropolitan Council.
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]Gov. Tim Walz[/image_caption]
Thirty-five states now have some form of ban-the-box legislation. Viewed as a criminal justice reform measure, it has been backed by powerful groups across the political spectrum, including the American Civil Liberties Union and the conservative billionaires Charles Koch and his brother, the late David Koch.
Sen. Bobby Joe Champion, the Minneapolis DFLer who was a lead sponsor of the bill that passed in 2009, said he continues to work at the Legislature on eliminating Minnesota’s loophole. “That’s one of those things we thought was fixed,” he said. “It is something that we are committed to changing … because we really do think it is important for individuals to be judged on their skills and qualifications and not on their past. We don’t want anything that would hamper that opportunity. We will continue to work on that.”
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Bill Kelley[/image_credit][image_caption]Secretary of State Steve Simon[/image_caption]
“This seems like an easy win for a special session like this,” Simon continued. “In the grand scheme of things, compared with restructuring and reimagining public safety, it’s a relatively small gesture but one that would matter to a lot of people who want to serve in some capacity.”
Champion said Tuesday that given the short session, he might look for another bill to amend to include the measure.
Coronavirus ‘sucked the air out of the room’
Simon’s office processes applications for appointments to boards and commissions, though it is mostly a ministerial function. The decisions are made by others, particularly the governor. Still, the requirement is in the section of state law governing Simon’s office and has been there since 2004, when it was added via a secretary of state omnibus bill without any debate on the provision.
While the regular session of the Legislature was disrupted in mid-March by the coronavirus epidemic, more than 1,500 House bills and 1,400 Senate bills were filed between Feb. 11 and March 12. None related to ban the box.
As of Monday, no bill has been filed in the special session, either. There was no request from Gov. Tim Walz or Secretary of State Simon to legislate the matter, though both said they thought the question could discourage good applicants. Nor was there a request from Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell or Human Rights Commissioner Rebecca Lucero, though both said it could deny second chances for former felons and was inequitable.
Schnell is also Walz’s lead on criminal justice reform. In January he described the fact that the question was still being asked on boards and commission applications as “bizarre.”
In late May, Schnell said the coronavirus pandemic distracted the administration from the issue. “There’s no doubt we have work to do and the pandemic I think sucked a lot of air out of the room and drew a lot of attention, and for good reason,” Schnell said. “The ban the box, especially around boards and commissions, are things we still want to look at. I think there are places in our organization where we want to make sure people, regardless of their previous history, can fully access and get on to any of the boards that we operate.”
[image_credit]MinnPost photo by Peter Callaghan[/image_credit][image_caption]Corrections Commissioner Paul Schnell[/image_caption]
“I wouldn’t go so far as to say there wasn’t a lot of work to be done legislatively, and a lot of politicking and a lot of educating and those sorts of things,” Schnell said. “Do I believe it would have been an easy lift? No. But, I think COVID certainly created a challenge I don’t think any of us would have anticipated.”
Simon said the provision was to be included in a bill to clean up outdated provisions in the code governing his office. But “then COVID hit and all bets were off,” he said. “It ended up on the cutting room floor.”
Prior to the beginning of the 2020 session, in February, Senate Majority Leader Paul Gazelka said he was willing to look at the issue. But the East Gull Lake Republican said there are some experts who think the inability to ask the question leads some employers to be less likely to consider young black men and young Hispanic men. Therefore, Gazelka said, not allowing the questions to be asked could have unintended and even opposite impacts.
That would also be an argument for repealing ban the box for all applications, something no one is proposing. At the same pre-session forum, House Speaker Melissa Hortman said: “If it’s a loophole, we need to get rid of it.”
The original law was bad legislation. Many public jobs have access to private data and/or money etc. Criminal history should be the first thing looked at for many of these jobs so that those who have a history that might lead to criminal behavior on the job can be weeded out first. You don’t want a thief working with tax data or handling money in any way…as an example.
What if that former thief has held positions of trust for 10 years prior to application? Should your preference summarily eliminate such a person?
Heard an interesting take on “ban the box” recently. I think it was via the podcast version of the On the Media program from WNYC (New York). The idea was that “ban the box” might make folks with “criminal records” LESS likely to be hired because in the absence of information about a job applicant’s past, prospective employers will guess, and either intentionally or inadvertenly profile the applicant.
Maybe it would be better if we could move toward embracing the hiring of ex-offendors. Easy for me to say, I guess, since I don’t have any employees.
I had about 100 employees for 2 businesses. I would be willing to hire someone with a record if they could provide solid references. The problem is many can’t. Maybe there would be a way that someone could “sponsor” them. Perhaps a church? Just a thought. I did have someone steal about 15K, the accountant caught it. He was a college student so his parents paid it back and he got it expunged from his record. Felony theft, I didn’t think it should be that simple. If he were black he would have been in jail.
There is or was a federal program that provided a bond. This should be part of all state corrections/ rehabilitation programs. At conviction, convicted felons would be instructed that they would be eligible for the employment bond program if the met specific criteria for behavior and programming such as obtaining GED, job training, life skills etc.
I met a man, two decades ago, who had been in jail for lights out in the rear of his car. He indicated that the patrolman did a check of his plates and found six bench warrants. They put him in jail for the night.
I asked him why he was a felon, and he said that it was the only job he knew how to do, and that when he tried to get honest work, he was turned away due to his criminal history. He said he hated his life and wanted to go straight.
I believe we should ban the box and take our chances with people who may have been in crime since their teenage years. If people like this want to lead an honest life, they cannot do so with a box that asks them about their criminal past.
Employers will ask about criminal history but after they have selected on qualifications instead of automatically eliminating them.
Unfortunately, with easy online access to court records and many “data mining” companies offering background reports, an employer can research potential applicants’ criminal histories without the applicant ever knowing.
Almost every job applicant undergoes (and agrees to) a background check by a prospective employer. Why is there a special carve-out for state employment applications? The promise to hire “the most qualified applicant” is almost meaningless if the employer doesn’t disclose the reason for not being hired and is prohibited by law to do so.