Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

All right. Good morning. Thank you all for being here. This is our second session of the uh band the box/protected class workshop uh sessions. Just a little bit of backstory. Uh the commission authorized a few uh months ago, quite a few months ago, um an workshop for the for the city to be able to take a look at how we address the conversation around um hiring practices for those who've been just as impacted. And so this work session has been a uh an effort between the city of Augusta, our community partners, BART business, and so many other people uh who see this as being a valid effort, something that is important in our community. And I'm just again honored to be able to be a part of this conversation and honored to be able to to bring such uh you know amazing people to the table that brings value to the conversation. And so what we will do today, last session, if you read our last session, just a quick recap, we heard from community partners about what the concerns were, what their concerns were. Uh folks had an opportunity to give their testimonies around uh you know, just their stories and their journeys. Um today's session is going to be about looking at the proposed ordinance. We have a copy today of the current ban the box policy and procedure. Um, I believe it was in 201 uh maybe 18ish the city passed a band and box policy which um which banned to a degree discriminatory practices in our hiring processes. Um again with folks who had been just as impacted. uh what we're talking about today will be the gaps in that policy and how although there is a policy in place, there's still opportunity for uh people to fall through the cracks, to fall through the wayside. And we need to

make sure that we're doing everything that we can as a city government to to close those gaps. And then also to encourage the general public, those in our business community, to also see the need to expand opportunities for people who may have made uh a small mistake in their past life. uh they have, you know, paid their quote debt to society. I quotate that. Um and they shouldn't be held to that. They should be able to still receive fair housing, fair opportunities and employment, so forth and so on. And so that is where the protected class language comes in play. In 2022ish, the city of Augusta passed a non-discrimination ordinance that um that was visionary and that was forthcoming. It was something that we did to protect uh folks in those same areas, housing, employment, so forth and so on. But we're going to also look at how to incorporate those who have been just as impacted. So before we begin digging into this into this ordinance today, I want to uh publicly thank our HR department and general counsel for being uh here today. They're going to help us lead and guide this conversation. U I want this to be an informal conversation. I'm going to do a lot of talking, but please make sure that if you have questions, jump in, add value to what we're speaking on today because the idea would be to take as much time as we need to look at these policies, marry them together, and get something to the commission for for review. Okay? I don't speak for the commission, but I do believe that there's a there's a real interest in seeing how the city can be uh a good partner and make this happen. And so, I want us to take our time today and look at these policies. Okay. Before we begin, I want to uh really just acknowledge the advocates who are at the table today and every every advocate that's at in the room. Um but specifically our advocates who operate in the justice impact and rights restoration space. I want to give them an opportunity to introduce themselves uh you know speak what's on their heart and then and then we'll go from there.

So I'll start with Morgan and then Morgan will introduce our brother and we will go from there.

Thank you very much. I appreciate that. My name is Morgan Boyd. I am the CSR regional manager with Bard Business. Uh we work to heal, resource, and build power for and with justice impacted people, their families, and their communities. Um we are here today because Augusta has a need and that need is to provide non-discrimination protections for uh people who have experienced the criminal justice system. Um, Augusta consistently sits at uh the top of the states uh people who are impacted by the criminal justice system. We have the most citizens on pay only probation and we um dismiss our misdemeanor cases at the lowest rate. So there is a large uh community that is being impacted by these discriminatory hiring practices. And one of the biggest things that we want everyone to understand is that a working community is a safe community. And so folks just want to get on with their lives after they have served their time and they should be able to do so. And it will only help our community grow. It will only help our community be safe. And it will also add tax uh revenue to our city. So there are no negatives to offering uh discrimination protection for justice impacted people. there are only positives. Uh and I would like to introduce Well, you can introduce yourself.

Hello everyone. So my name is Hilton Samp and I'm a barber and also a member of the president's advisory council for John Maxwell leadership team and today I come to you as a justice impacted person myself and this conversation is going to be very pivotal for the advancement of people of my nature. And the thing is, some of the people that I've been blessed to be around are some of the smartest people, some of the most hardworking people. Sometimes we work two to three times as hard as other people to do the same things that other people have to do, but we don't get the same opportunities. So, this conversation today can rectify that and maybe provide relief for some people like me and that other people in the city can see what we have to offer. That's it.

Thank you so much. We appreciate your efforts. We thank y'all for keeping this this um this issue at top of mind. Um in his absence, I'd also like to acknowledge uh Mr. Lawrence Brandon who has been um an advocate as well in this space. Um he has kept this on our radar and we thank him for keeping this on our radar. Um and so we want to make sure that um that we do everyone in this space justice by having this conversation. Want to also acknowledge Commissioner Tony Lewis who's here with us today. Thank you, Commissioner Lewis. Happy Mars. Okay. All right. Well, let let's jump into reviewing the current policy. Uh, you should have a copy of the current Bandit Box policy and procedures that was adopted October 31st, 2018. Um, this policy lays out what Augusta's hiring policies mean for justice impacted individuals. If you look at the procedure section, uh it lays out what the application process is, the the evaluation of criminal history process, adverse employment decisions, confidentiality, exempts, and so forth and so on. And so, as it currently stands, when an individual, regardless of their their their background, when they apply for employment in the in in the city of Augusta, uh there is no section on the job application that asks an individual if they have been criminally impacted. That box has been removed. Uh but an applicant, however, must consent to a criminal background check along with other pre-employment screens. Right? So that is consistent within that is consistent amongst local government, state government, federal government. What happens is if you are fortunate enough to be offered this job, you apply for whatever position. If you're fortunate enough to be offered the position, a criminal background check is done. After that criminal background check is done, if something comes up,

something shows up in your record. um is at that moment where the hiring is left to the discretion of the uh human resources department and the department head. Okay. After receiving that recommendation, it can be it can be recommended for a person to either be terminated, I mean not terminated, not hired or hired based off of wherever that practice is. One thing that we've identified is that there are very few second chance options that the city of Augusta is offering. So if you're going through the hire process, something comes up in your background that that flags you to not be the the the ideal candidate for that position. It's sort of like we say, "Thank you for applying. Have a good day." But we have had conversations in public on the floor, even in settings like these to where uh we've discussed what second chance hiring looks like for the city of Augusta. And I want to pause for a second and uh CR HR director could weigh in a little bit on that as far as um if a person uh goes through a process, they're not the ideal candidate, what can the city of Augusta do to still make sure that they have an opportunity to work within our organization? Thank you, Commissioner Johnson. Um, honestly, what I believe we should be doing is creating options or space for options. You may not qualify for this position. You may qualify for something else because we have positions that are non-safety positions that we could possibly offer. It may not be available in that particular department. it may be available in another department where it's nonsafety sensitive. They're not around kids. It doesn't um affect our community in a way that they

shouldn't be, you know, around people. So, just being able to hide some options so that a person may not qualify for job A, they may qualify for job B is a good step. and I and I put her on the spot, but she but she but she knows what she's doing. Uh and and we've had these conversations about why that's important, right? So, a part of this conversation and a part of this this policy should also be those second chance options. Okay? If you don't uh qualify quote again, qualify for one position, there should be options presented to you versus just sending you out along your way. And that's something that we're going to look at too as well. If you look at the back page of your sheet, which will be page number is the amendments to the ordinance. We want to take a step further by adding language that specifically protects those who have had criminal histories, who are justice impacted to our ordinances. We want to state it. You want to list out criminal history, criminal history status in our ordinances. And so in the section in the back of your of your your staple package, it has an ordinance to amend the ban the box policies and procedures. This shows you what the recommended amendments are. And so in sub paragraph 2 of paragraph B, evaluation of criminal history/ selection process of section one, procedures is hereby amended to read as the following. Okay. When conducting and reviewing the criminal background check, the human resources department shall make an individual assessment of the relevance of the criminal record to the duties and responsibilities of the position. Okay, so shall is being added into this conversation. It should not be an option.

Okay, you move down to the bottom. The human resources department will make a recommendation to department head, hiring manager or designate based on the results of individualized assessments. Move on down. Sub paragraph three, paragraph B, evaluation of criminal history selection process of section one. Procedure is hereby deleted and is entirely a new sub paragraph and is adopted to read as the following. The director of human resources department shall make the final decision as whether the negative criminal history prohibits the hiring of the selected candidate. This language was put in place to protect the applicant. It's is to protect the applicant. is not to put the fate of someone's livelihood or someone's uh history or someone's privacy in the hands of a department head. Right? It is to protect that applicant. Um here is the language in the third paragraph that speaks of the second chances. If the selected candidate is not hired because of his or her criminal history, he or she should be notified in writing within 30 days of this decision and the selected candidate shall be provided a photocopy of results on the criminal inquiry indicating the specific convictions that relates to the position's responsibilities. The human resources department shall offer to discuss with the select the candidate other positions with Augusta that he or she may be qualified to apply for in which the negative criminal history will not present his or her from being hired. On the back page are amendments to the personnel policy and procedures manual. The personal policy and procedures manual is our document that that would coincide with making sure that certain protections are in place for people based off of race, class, orientation, so forth and so on. And so the first paragraph of section 2000. Which is our equal employment section is amended to add criminal history status after citizenship status. That is for

taking class. The first paragraph of section 2000.2 002 discrimination and harassment free workplace is also amended to add criminal history after citizenship status paragraph the first paragraph of section 00.004 EEO office overview purpose and scope is also amended to add criminal history status after veteran status and section 2000.6 06 EEO office oversight and jurisdiction is amended as follows. Subsection A to add criminal history status after veteran status to section one regarding Augusta's employment EEO issues. Subsection B to add criminal history status after veteran status to section one regarding matters to which the Augusta government EEO office policy or procedure do not apply. and section C to add criminal history status after veteran status to section three regarding matters to which the Augusta Georgia EEO office policy and procedures do not apply. And so essentially what this proposed policy would do is it would close the gaps between a good intention and an unintended consequence. It would close the gap. it would add language in that would that would protect those who have been just as impacted in our hiring processes. Uh and so I believe that this is a good a good step in the right direction. One thing that I also want to mention before we open the floor for conversation and discussion of these documents is that while we're having these conversations about how to have hiring to be fair and equitable in the city's process, we have to also make sure that we're focusing on how can we encourage the general population, the general community, the general business community to to also welcome this conversation in their own hiring practices as well. And not only just in hiring practices, but in housing practices as well. Um, you know, I would

love for us to take a step into reviewing our procurement procedures to where a a person may essentially get an additional point if they agree to hire someone with a criminal background or who has been justice impacted uh in order to get certain business contracts throughout the city of Augusta. I would love for the city to even look at our housing policies to see how can we use our own resources to help folks who have been just as impacted get fair housing as well. And so let's not make this the the end all be all, right? If in fact this gets passed through the commission, I I charge everyone at the table and everyone in the room to continue to have the conversation about how to make this holistic for the community at large because it is definitely a necessary uh a necessary tool in our toolbox. Okay. So, I'm going to pause. I'm going to open for any uh comments, any questions. Let's dig through this. Let's talk through it. Uh and we'll spend the rest of our time doing that. So, if you wish to to have input, please. Yes. Um in the sub paragraph three of paragraph B, it says the director of the human resources department shall make the final decision. Um our first intention was to uh create a human relations commission. um with an odd number of city members. Uh it seems like a very weighty decision to put in one person's hands. Um and I'm very pleased with the direction I'm looking at, but you know, people change. So I that would just be something that I would caution.

I I can kind of speak on that too. Um because I I've taken people where they have job fairs or whatever now they say second chance job fairs. I've taken um bus band loads of people there and um spoke to HR directly. We came little lately like they closing down iron right now cuz you know a lot of people show up trying time to get a job. But um anyway um HR pulled me to the side like don't worry about it. I'mma call you later and you bring them back. But um once we do the criminal record background check half of these people going to be excluded. You know what I'm saying? So I'm just looking at that prejudice already that they have in their heart like it's not just going to change because these policies. So you know you do need to put it in somebody else.

Any feedback on that? I'm sorry.

Do you have any feedback on that? You know, I think part of the issue is the way that this amendment where previously the HR director would provide information to the department head and then the department head is making the decision to hire base or not. you're taking that out of um not say bias but some of you may have a concern that you're kind of removing that to to the HR department which you assume is a little bit more u bigger picture which I think is a positive in that regard creating a a human race we've had human relations before but those are more like toward complaints It seems a little cumbersome and a little disclosing to me that if I apply for a job and every time someone and I have a a clean criminal background history, does HR does the human right relations commission still meet to see if I get hired? If it doesn't, then when you know HR does the background report, we're now going to have to engage this commission to make a discern certain um determination of whether or not they should be hired. You're kind of indirectly telling people because now we impose this commission to come forth and decide on the fate of Jim or not. Aren't you kind of telling people indirectly that this is a concern?

Reflect. So red flagging those people and you're kind of disclosing that out and I don't I don't think that's the intent but I'm afraid that's in a small community like Augusta. It's going to be you know is is that commission members of the these these members of the HRC would they be employees? Would they be the administrator? Are you just alerting things that are unnecessarily we have the confidentiality of the HR department? So I I I I would be concerned about that from a practical imp implementation. Follow question from Miss Boyd. The the human resources commission would that be to decide to hire or would that be in the event that there's a dispute uh or a disagreement based off of, you know, not being hired. So if I apply for a job, don't get it, do I take that to the human the human relations commission or is the human relations commission is the purpose to to make the hired decision? So the human relations commission's purpose is to handle the complaint.

Yes. Um and in my mind that would be members outside of the department. Okay. Yes sir.

So Miss B when I hear you say the HRC would be to handle the complaint. How does the complaint get there? How does the complaint move from the Hind process? because we're we're talking about HR hiring that individual, but then I hear you say that one person could be skewed or biased toward hiring. So, how do we get to the complaint part? How do we move from the hiring to the complaint part if we're talking about a human relation commission being involved? And I understand that if we're talking about a human relation commission, then that would I would look to that to be handled from a complaint perspective as opposed to a hiring perspective. So now we're looking at HR as the hire, but then you on the other side you say a HRC commission because and you talk about a odd number because it takes it out of one person's hand and it puts it so that those two don't I don't see them really going together because one is talking about a complaint and the other one is talking about the hiring practice. So how do we resolve that particular if you

if I can step in I think uh the the moral of this conversation is really surround the accountability of the director of human resources. So like one question I ask is is there implementation already to hold whoever is in that accountable to whatever implicit bias may come up. Um, I think that's the the desire for a relations commission in the case that the next person that's in this role may not be as intentional or progressive potentially. You know, that's a worry, but it's also something we need to plan for. So, are there already um accountability pieces in place? And if not, that's why we're trying to, you know, work toward that solution.

Are we are we starting to create though discrimination suits? So if HR says don't hire Jim because of my criminal history, I I'm told that's why I'm not being hired. Is that going to be part of the issue or I was simply just not hired? So are they going to tell me why I wasn't hired? Are you asking through this legislation? Is is that this legislation or anything? So the idea is that I apply the department head interviews me. They say I want to hire Jim,

right? They do a background search and HR says, "Jim, there's a problem." They find out my criminal history says I had a some type of conviction. They HR makes a determination that that is inconsistent with that position. They don't tell the department head, "I just don't get hired." Now, is she supposed to tell me why I wasn't hired according to this policy? Yes. Because but what I'm saying is that I mean if you tell everybody that why they're not hired. We do.

Yeah. So anybody that just comes in, I'm sorry y'all say we didn't hire you because we think your skill set aren't good enough. We say you weren't hired because of the specifics to your criminal background. No, no, no. I'm saying I'm just saying listen criminal. But I apply for a job, I don't get it. Do you come in and tell me why I didn't get it? No. So we don't tell every single every single applicant why they so so it's going to be only telling them if it is excluded because of the criminal history. And then the idea is that if you debate I dispute that that's that's relevant to the policy. Yes.

So aren't we now needing to create a policy of what crimes prohibit you from getting what jobs? They have that with the nature of the offense, the time since conviction, the the evidence of rehabilitation. I think there's a litany of a litany of Yeah. She's got to have a she's going to have to have some type of matrix.

Yes. To make that. And the last time I checked cuz this came up, Mr. Brand as you mentioned earlier, he said what he one of his concerns and I'm paraphrasing I don't he wouldn't mind me saying this was the second chance idea is great but are you just simply delaying a denial

the band the box you get me there I apply and if I known that I would not be able to do because of this I wouldn't have been applied to begin for you know in other words you just kind of give me false hope is his issue and so there like 500 crimes in the state. So, you know, is it just going to be by category? Is it theft? Is it shoplifting? Is it shoplifting of of a certain dollar amount? So, I'm I'm trying to we want do we want to take any discretion out of that hiring, I guess, is what I'm trying to say. You know, because I'm thinking in terms of not getting people jobs. I'm thinking of defending my county because someone goes to HRC and they dispute it. Is there a secondary? Can they go to courts to file suit? And if they're filing suit, am I defending this over

violated something? Let me ask your question. So in in in the current sense, if if I'm justice impacted, I apply for a job at the city, I don't get that job, could I still sue the city today? If I found out that I was not hired because of my criminal background, I don't think so unless it has some other discriminatory issue. So with the with the with the notification I would get from HR, I can't go to a lawyer and sue for unfair hiring. Is that your understanding as well? That's my understanding. Okay. But because of the individualized assessment,

that is what that's a front end protection. As long as you go through the individualized assessment, that's your protection. That's a proactive instead of reactive protection.

It's proactive in the sense of she has now done and I'm sorry, I mean, make it Anita today. I'm the employee. I'm the applicant. You're going to be the HR. She's done the assessment. That's great. And she now had based on assessment, I don't get the job. So that's what we're doing today. You're doing criminal background histories. It just you don't make the decision. The department head makes the decision. And what we're now creating is this assessment has to say because of this item I am excluded from an eligible I I'm become ineligible. And so I I'm just want to think about Anita how she she has to have the rules that you're eligible or ineligible. I mean, it'd be real easy. If I want to apply to be a draftsman and I have to have five years experience and I have three, I'm excluded. And I can't complain. I can't say it's discriminatory, it's age, or whatever. You just don't get the qualifications. So, I'm trying to protect her that the individual who wants to get the job that she is protected hopefully from this HRC issue where they come in and say, "Hey, that was discriminatory. You should have allowed them to have a job." Do they override her or is that a lawsuit? Well, well, just to use your example, if you apply for a job that minimum requirement is 5 years, you only get three, that's the reason you're not hired. But if I apply and I have eight years experience and I also have a previous condition, I don't get hired. That's where I I see this formation like following. Not just using an excuse, they ain't hired me, but I have a a record. of lawsuit. Uh the the evidence

of other reasons, overlapping reasons why you shouldn't have this job, I think are the forefront of the conversation looks like. And to defend your position, you know, those are the talking points. Has nothing to do with your your history. It's your job history and lack of experience. Regular quote unquote people, you know, don't get hired for that every day. People who are overqualified for jobs don't get hired every day. That's not an issue. the issue is when it specifically is tied to that that uh previous um vendiction record. Does that have any clarity to the other one? It it sort of but the thing is is that if I have two candidates Yeah.

one of them's eight years, one of them's five years. One eight year has conviction and the other one doesn't. But if you exclude that that five years was fabulous experience and the other person who has good experience just three years difference are we now so and she gives the job to the to the one who has 5 years experience not the criminal that she's never going to say it's because you were convicted I mean nobody's going to you know in that regard she's just I went to the more eligible person but the person who had the 8 years experience is going how can you

how can you overlook me when I have 8 years versus five that's what we're that's the lawsuit that I see coming right and then but obviously if it was you have 8 years experience but um you designed to build I used a draftman that's a bad design but you know let's say I'm going to be a an accountant and I have a shoplifting maybe that's that excludes you obvious Obviously if I had um embezzled embezzlement that's yeah that discloses to me but what if I what if it was 25 years ago but it's an extra offensive one

so so but you know we said that but it's shoplifting that's a theft crime is that something that should exclude me so she goes it's theft your accountant you can't get it so she said he does this and he goes look embezzlement Shoplifting is not relevant to handling financial affairs. Shoplifting would be an issue if I was in central services where I am handling inventory. That might be that. But she's made a theft, you know, theft is is the issue and then she's going to go to HRC and they're going, "Well, we agree with you that it shouldn't. And so does that person now get the job or does that person have a right to sue for that cuz now she's already hired someone the five-year person fill the position. Are we not able to fill a position until 30 days is gone or you know and so we so what I'm we need to to greater thought to define the assessment a little bit better and then talk a little bit about the roles or responsibilities of the HRC if that's the right and and they agree with the employee if they agree with the employee what does that open up for the benefit of that employee or what does it open up for liability for Augusta. What would what would be the diff? Well, let me ask you this way. Would the current personnel board somewhat serve as in the same capacity as the HRC? Instead of creating the HRC, we we somewhat extend the responsibilities of the personnel board. you my understanding and and you know Anita please correct me we have had less than stellar attendance by personnel

boards you know we we put them on there but they're so infrequently used that they don't get involved but could you use that as the same person I think yeah we could probably you know you was I think you could use that as as opposed to yet another board you know because I'm thinking that I mean they're the same things. They are fired fire. I think that would be a good I think that would be a reasonable place to put them,

but I'm still concerned about that because um now I totally agree that there's too much weight put on HR directors decision. Let's put that out there. Um, but I also think that the personnel board or the employee relations board, we're talking about someone's background. They are required. We have to give them some level of respect and not discuss it. They they are owed some confidentiality. So when you talk about bringing their business to another board,

I don't know every member on the board. I'm not affiliated with every member on the board. I don't know their background. You're sharing their information. Again, it's last year. So, even if it's the board, even if it's the board, if it's a HRC commission, it's the same process be the same process. You'll be sharing information with individual other individuals based on that applicant's history. So either either way, regardless of whether it's the personnel board or HR's commission, either way, information will be disseminated. Let's let's let's look at it like that. Right. that and so at that point

but I I appreciate that it's their decision but I think by doing that we are I'm probably going to sound like I am progovernment and and all of that but but I think they're when you say they that's their decision to do it. I think that's a person that's a little bit in a rock and a hard place. you're putting them into a box that I want the job, but if I can't get it, I have to go out there and agree to disclose everything. And then as public record, what might have been otherwise? And I'm like, I think you're putting that individual a little bit in a hard spot,

but I I want you to understand they're already in between a rock and a hard place coming through the door, but but agreed. But we're we're making it that that next step. They're having to do some disclosure. I just I mean I'm not sure. It seems like at that point in time that their choice is hey I get to go disclose this or I don't get a job and that and I realize that they have been in a bad situation. So maybe that's not that big of a deal. I don't know. You know, it just seems to me that we're, you know, during the exposing dirty laundry more than dirty laundry needs to be exposed.

During the procurement process, when a person when when a bid is submitted, there's an internal committee to grade those those those applications. Could that work? Could that could that work as opposed to a public a public setting where folks are disclosing their information in a live stream meeting? Could there be an internal uh internal committee that the HR department leads um that discusses this information with that candidate versus it being I don't know it would it make much of a difference? I think the question comes in is one I don't know but I think probably you could but you're going to need to have someone who is not at least a majority of the group that is not employees of Augusta because if Rooker says I don't think the person should be employed and you go get the administrator and you get I don't know government debt is going with government.

Yeah. They're going to back up to back up their colleague a little bit and so I think that's going to be a problem. So you need to have people who are independent, you know, and and we did have the HRC. I mean, I don't know if we still do, but we had that we had that, you know, so you go back to that. It was a it's like a prerequisite to filing the EO complaint. So I think you could do it confidentially. I'm just thinking that it's I'd rather do it confidentially than not because usually that would require a need to get there to talk with them about this is why we see it's an issue which is the third problem come I mean the third thing catches you there which is you can't do this but you could do that. Remember, they're supposed to come in and say, "We find you excluded, but we think you could apply for these positions." So, and maybe that's not even if there's a current opening, but should you come back in, but I I just want to make it not too hard on HR to say yay or nay. Um,

nor do I want to be sued, right? So, so there needs to be greater greater definition of the assessment process and the and the I guess the appeal process is what we're is what we're basically how does a person successfully appeal this process or appeal the decision. Yes. Can we say can we ask questions? Oh, absolutely. Absolutely. Just please raise your hand and I'll miss Hicks. Yes. I what is the current rebuttal process if I go in apply for a job feel like I've been denied for whatever what is the current rebuttal process that I have if you're just not a convicted felon

if it's just a regular person I go in for your time have my interview I'm qualified I want to know why you get this job and they didn't couldn't tell me sufficient reason do Is there a current process? Who wants to hatch?

She can say what would be what the an can tell you what what they would say. Then I can tell you that you know if you you're female so if you're discriminated because of gender, if you were discriminated because of age or if you know race, those are three or you know national origin or religious and things like that. So she could say you don't get hired and the next person hired is, you know, is male, white, and you know, young. You might say, "Hey, I've been discriminated on and you have rights to go do that."

So wouldn't under this ordinance, the person that is justice, challenged, whatever we're calling it, wouldn't they still have the same opportunity to do that? You're creating that. This is what that would do. This is what this would be. So, currently there's no process. There's no no. Well, I think a process is necessary and that's what we're trying to get at. That's what we're trying to get at. So, what I'm saying is is that but I now this just my personal opinion. I don't think that a outside board should be making hiring decisions for the city.

Yeah, that's a great point. I I really I really don't think that it needs to be a board within that department of those people that do that because if I'm the director and I don't hire you and then someone else comes in and says, "Oh no, we're going to hire him anyway." I'm quitting. I'm not going to do that job because what it does is undermines her job and her authority to be able to make the decision on the hiring process. So it needs to be something that's within that department, maybe her supervisors or maybe, you know, something that's within the department so that she can't just be overridden halfhazardly, but it's somebody that's making decisions based on the and like you said, there should be some protocol should be some you you should have some prerequis Yeah. Or if your felony that you convicted that you were convicted for excludes you from this position, then that's that. That's that. But I I don't think it should be somebody on the outside that's going to come in and override the person that's doing the job on a daily basis because I think that would really undermine her authority as a director.

Yep. Thank you, sis. There a couple of things that you brought up that one relates to her. You talked about procurement that they sit down that procurement that board or whatever that group is within the procurement department and they rate. So that's sort of where she's going with I think um I don't like it putting it just on you. I I really I think that's not one that's a lot of a lot and and Morgan's also talked about the fact that there is bias there is I mean just by that so having a a committee would be good the other thing is I come from education um rubric a rubric of the the the things that are that um job requires um and what are weighted, you know, um do you get a one through three rating on these things? To me, that makes it easier to assess if you've got an assessment rubric that's based on that job description. And then we look at the protected class because one of the things I think it says in here is if that conviction doesn't directly impact that um that position. My thing is also is misdemeanor versus felony makes a difference also. Um a lot of people, you know, you don't want um somebody who's convicted of sexual harassment working with, you know, or pedophile or something working with kids

that directly does that. But if like you said, if it's shoplifting or if it was possession of marijuana or which a lot of our inmates are drugrelated causes, do those directly impact the job if that's what their conviction was? Well, keep in mind that the person that we're talking about has already been interviewed by the department head and is qualified for the job. Okay? They they did the job, but for the conviction. So, the person's already gone through all the vetting. It's not like a skill set. It's just simply now the person who's up for it is just as impacted. And now someone has to make a determination. Is that history excluding? Does do they get excluded simply because of that? So and and and I'm just trying to think, you know, and I think you can just have certain

I think it's easy to have certain things that would just by definition it squitch, you know, right?

Malice murder. Okay, you're probably not going to get it. pedophilia. Okay, that's pretty good. Yeah, you know, but you get into crimes that are different levels and they're all within the same category, you know, embezzlement is a theft as is laren as is, you know, armed robbery versus, you know, pickpocket, you know, but there's theft. And I think that's the thing that we have to be able to define so that the person and then you want to backs stop if if Anita just you see a judge who got broken into multiple times. You did not want to go to his you know his house was burglized multiple times and if you were in a burglary you did anything you could do to get a different judge because you knew that person was going to be sentenced harder than other judges. So if the HR director has a bias against certain crimes, will they be excluded? So you need that backs stop that says, hey, there's an appeal process. Who that is is a question. But to me, it makes sense that we figure out what excludes and how do we define the exclusion so that it's pretty much ironclad. We're going to that Augusta would win anytime there's a challenge because otherwise they got the job. Do you see what I'm saying? You know, we want to make sure that the person's clearly done.

Honestly, hold on. I'm pass it to you. you guys want to say one quick thing cuz you're Yeah, I'm not saying you're not making valid um points toward trying to find concretess for sustainability. Uh I just read back over the initial paragraph. I feel like the intentionality toward some some gray area in that individualized assessment is kind of also what you're speaking toward. You know, sometimes there is a story that is attached to the why that will add clarity and make sense. Um, and I don't know if there's intention for that indiv individualized assessment to be documented or recorded in the instance that there is a lawsuit. And I know HR conversations to a degree are, you know, confidential. So I think just as another suggestion or addition to this legislation potentially is, you know, within that subjective area of the individualized assessment, um, yes, there can be some concrete questions that we can create to like guide that discussion. So in the off future that there is a lawsuit or there is a a point where we need to defend some of the faculty um those conversations can be pulled because it says that the candidate you know can request that in person meeting and if they don't maybe I'm confident that I got the job and if I didn't request that in person that's me removing that safety net for myself. So, you know, that that leaves accountability on the justice impacted community to say if I feel like I am credible and this might be something because of this legislation. I'm going to request that in person so I can plead my case and say all the ways that I am credible for this job regardless of my previous history. And in that conversation, uh I can only imagine, you know, the HR person or group um presence is interacting intentionally. And I say that conversation should be documented or in or recorded um in the off chance that there is a lawsuit. We can say well let's not say he say she say let's watch

this conversation the board in that point that might be an opportunity for the outside ears to watch objectively without bias and just hear two people or two bodies conversing and that can be just another addition potentially toward that clarifying object. I feel like trying too hard to find that concretenness will dissolve some of the point of initial drafting a bill like this. You know, there there is a lot of gray area in the justice system before, during, and after. And I feel like that individualized assessment is the justice and bad community's opportunity to utilize this ordinance in their favor to say here's my case. I did the work. I did the time. Hire me because I deserve it. And if afterward I still don't get a job and we refer to a the requirements of the position plus b how the individualized assessment went. I feel like there's more fighting for you as far as a defense than fighting against you if we try too hard to figure out what are the correct questions or instances to ask beforehand and during um before you respond. I know Cory's

goody sure cuz he kind of was on the same. Okay. Thank you to respond attorney. Before Before you do that though, I want to point to section two of the current bandit box policy where it talks some of the exemptions. We were talking a little bit about exemptions. What would exclude someone or what exemptions would be? The current policy states that public safety positions working with children or any positions in which state or federal law require exclusion. So I want to point out

well it should yes so but I want you to add that into the conversation before J. I think we'll get back to that. I think the idea is positive that the person who's going to be hired that the criminal background history should not be

when you have 30 department I think it is you going to it's nice to have someone that's kind of centralized that makes those decisions as opposed to being so selective you know I think you could get someone who's more willing than other people who are going to be tight and so having that continuity is helpful. I think it's just we need to think of how does it how does it actually work going forward and and that's all that's all I'm trying to raise. It's not that good, bad or indifferent. It's just I want to make sure that when the first person comes up that everybody wants to hire that they have a criminal history and they I mean keeping in mind HR can over on the individual assessment can say they should still be hired and they get a job. It's only when they say you can't get hired. And that's what we're trying to figure out that those isolated incidents where I mean I'm not saying that HRs are necessarily more liberal in this, you know, in terms of hiring, but you hope they are that they're giving people the chance as opposed to excluding them. They're trying to include them. And so that's what we're trying to figure out. when they get excluded, what does that open up? How do we deal with that exclusion issue?

So, I want to offer some language to that question. So, the human relations commission or or whatever body has decided, right? Um shall be for oversight. It's an oversight body to monitor compliance with this ordinance and provide guidance on best practices. So to your question earlier, it's not to say, hey, no, you need to hire them anyway, um, Miss Anita opened with saying, okay, well, what are other opportunities that we can offer? So, what are some best practices that we can use? uh complaints of discrimination based on criminal history status shall be reviewed by the human relations commission or whatever body which shall have the authority to investigate and recommend creative actions where violations occur. So this is a guiding body. Yes. Rather than looking at it as a um a coordination. So at the end of the day, HR role still has the decision there's to potentially

to help guide them decision and take some of that pressure off as well.

And one thing I'll add and again uh I'm not just I have a a more typically more strong arm lens when it comes to holding elected officials accountable. I say sometimes what needs to be said in the room. And I feel like a big part of this conversation is, you know, we're worried about the the backlash of the community or like the safe haven of, you know, people already employed by the city and that's valid. I think that we we need to just address, you know, not the potential of a bias. There is a bias and there is a taboo. And as a community, as a state, we need to just swallow that hard pill that if we are going to put our money where our mouth is and say a community is a community, we need to be intentional about reshaping that narrative of having justice impacted people in our community and not saying it's us versus them. I I think the ideal should be in Augusta where, you know, if I have a criminal background and I get hired over someone who doesn't, I'm not shunned or looked at crazy or not trusted in whatever establishment. It won't happen today. It won't happen tomorrow. This isn't going to be a a road without bumps or pop holes. But I feel like the the uncomfort that you all are feeling right now is necessary for us to get to where we are going next. I feel like you're raising great questions and we're not going to probably find every answer today, but the fact that you're having these questions is necessary because they weren't being asked months ago, right? You know, and I feel like let's just keep our ideals and our our our our goals around that topic that this is going to be uncomfortable for the mass, but at the same time, there's a big portion of y'all community that this is for. And though it might be a a collective conversation we have to shape together and you know it might be hard from the public eye for some people who are more closed lens or more conservative when it comes to you know who is working in what positions. I mean

you know you all are here for a reason. You know I guess it's a part of the job as it looks now in 2026. I just want to you know not not put that on your plate. I know you're aware of these things, but I like saying things out loud to everybody in the room. And I just feel like that's something we need to restate. Um because it sounds like that's starting to be a tone of the room. Um the justice impacted people are the people we're advocating for today, not the people who haven't been affected. We're not going to forget about them, but it's, you know, there's not a DEI in store for justice folks. So I I I like a reality where a guy who went to, you know, Yale is upset that he didn't get the job over a companion of mine that did the same work and might have been locked up for 5 years. Hate hate the player, hate the game, whatever you want to decide. But like I mentioned our last work group, you know, I've been blessed to not have a a record yet, you know, and you know, got an undergrad degree. I've done a lot of work in the community and you know it's still hard to get a job. You know that's not anything with people who haven't been just impacted aren't living. It's just people that have been just impacted are living with that reality plus another handicap plus another hurdle and again not going to monogize. These are things you all know. I just feel like we need to refresh that while we're having this conversation because it might get a little lost in some of the the the Ros but with you also talking about the exceptions um um we do still have to remember the key exceptions to where each job applies of course if come someone is coming for a pharmaceutum job and you they've been um charged with, you know, substances, of course, that makes a difference. So, we still have to look at the exceptions um of the nature of the offense and also the time. You know, there's people who had a

conviction 20 years ago,

20 years ago, and are still having problems with getting a job. And then now, you know, folks are even coming who have been um previously incarcerated. They're coming with incentives for employers. They are bringing the work opportunity tax credit to where employers are able to get money from any justice impacted person that they hire at the end of the year. So, they're trying to say, "Hey, take a chance on me." Even with the federal bonding, folks are coming who are already insured. their license and shirt to where you can actually hire a person who have been federally bonded to where you don't have to worry about any mistrust from them because they're coming to show you that they are going to do this job. But the continuous barrier after barrier after a person gets when you've already given them you know their freedom. People are coming home feeling like they're free but they're not right. they're not because of these hurdles that they are still facing from just getting a job. You have people who have yes made a a decision um a wrong decision at a time but you have brilliant people who are coming home with degrees um with um the full intent of this is my second chance. I'm coming. I'm a mom. I'm a dad. I have family. I'm coming to make sure that I, you know, do the right thing and take the pride in myself. But you have so many people who have that stigma on a person who has been incarcerated and they just think no matter what they've done, they're just the scum of the earth. Period. You know, and they don't get that chance that they are looking for. And this policy is one of the things that, okay, yes, it's been passed in Atlanta unanimously. It's been

passed and until the word gets out for people to understand that this is an ordinance in place and then we can get it, you know, from county to county, state to state, people are going to still hold discrimination against folks and you're still not going to allow people to be able to live that fair life that they choose want to do. Gotcha. Yeah. when you talk about u what is taking place in Atlanta um how do we look at what language they impose you know where where are the drafts where the I mean there had to be a draft before there was an implementation so so do we model yeah thank I didn't have

you're fine I appreciate the question brother if anyone else would like a copy we have a few more um and and just to speak a little bit toward that we're not trying to reinvent the wheel. We we've seen it work in Atlanta. We've seen it work in a few states outside and New Orleans, Chicago. Um and you know, down in 16 states in fact,

and speaking of Atlanta, I'm going back to the non-discrimination uh workshop that Commissioner Scott led years ago. Councilwoman Kathy Wooler helped us get that on the finish line in Richmond County. She joined and had a couple calls with us then. And so, uh, you know, I want to I want to reemphasize that I do believe that there's a real appetite to get this to passage. I do think so because I think that it's that important. Everyone's voices have been heard in the process and u, you know, Augusta is not on an island on the other side of Georgia, right? We we we we know what the issues are. We're looking at solutions for these issues and that's why we want to come to the table with as many partners as possible to see how to serve as many people as possible. And so, uh, I can speak for myself, I can speak for my colleagues that we're committed to making sure that we present the best policy possible for for the people who who we're trying to serve. Right. So, um, we're in this thing together. Yes, ma'am. Absolutely. I got you.

From an HR perspective, what you're asking me to do is to have a conversation with justice impacted employees. I think we have to.

Yeah. Um, but what I also have to do is we've got to come up with some matrix because whether it's me or somebody else, the bias doesn't need to be on the table, but the business does. And so what I'd like to do is take this back and really put some meat to there and give you something to look at because whether it's me or someone else, we need to deal with the business. But what you're asking HR to do even in this is if you have a justice impacted person in this particular job they may qualify for have a conversation to offer them something else.

So that's a one-on-one that's a meeting that's a discussion. So, and I say all that to say when you talk about the business, we need to put some things in place for those one-on- ons to protect that person as well. So, as me, the position, not me, but the position. I feel like that's perfectly I'm sorry. I feel like that's perfectly fair and like we're not, you know, a concrete wall. We're flexible. I I definitely want to work with you all. I know Mo has been doing a great job of being that bridge um for the tech class. And I don't even think uh sir, I don't know your name. I'm Jim.

Jim, you're Jim. Nice to know your acquaintance. Um I don't think Jim's even asking anything aggressive or wrong. I think it's valid, you know, for y'all in your perspective. Just seem to keep what is already instilled. Um that's why we're having conversations, right? I would applaud and encourage, you know, for the next time we congregate, you you make some points or some, you know, restructuring that would make you feel more safer. Same with you, Jim. And that doesn't have to be in a silo. we can, you know, meet for some coffee or what we call and figure it out together and we all aren't wearing name tags. It's it can be smiles. It doesn't have to be pitchforks and fists in the air. This is a community and I keep saying that not to be cliche, but it's like we're here so that everybody can come out with a smile on their face regardless of party line, regardless of where you stay. I think that is understood to be the goal at least in this room. Um, so so I don't think there's any push back for that at all, man. I'm just, you know, this is a priority for us. So I I would just hope that you know it's a priority for you to come back to this conversation sooner than later so that we don't have to stand outside with pitchforks and that's not the goal. Um does that does that add any safety for you?

For sure. Let me get uh

Yeah. One of the things I think this discussion has uh two different ones. We've talked about hiring practice and that's what you're talking about in the matrix and the coming and the talking. And then the other one that I see happening is the protected status that that period to add that to these as uh one of the uh that justice impact is a protected status. So you've got you're they're two different discussions. So, we need to to say, "Oh, um, do we want protective status added as one of those?" I mean, justice impacted added as a protective status because that changes it now to a civil rights, not uh not a a discriminate, not a hiring thing. That's a civil rights issue when we do that. That expands this. Um, and I like that idea. Uh, just a second. Um that that and that's as as a way to say that you know that this um because you know recently we've had that whole conversation about getting rid of protected status period in the charter because it's covered by the state or the federal government but we also know that the state and federal government changes

and those that Yeah. And and I note it's noted in here about the state and federal. It has to change. Yeah. So, we've got to that's something to consider that if it's delineated in our ordinances that if it doesn't go against the state or federal if they but if the state or federal deletes all those protected statuses and just says they're not there, then we're not protecting them anymore. We still are. Right. Right. And that's the thing. So the hiring practice is one element. Protected status is the other. Yep. And you're absolutely right. As we mentioned at the beginning of the workshop, we're going to take these two policies and we're going to marry them together.

Going to marry them together. They're going to get along. They're going to work together. Right. A longstanding. Commissioner Scott, my apologies for being late and I do have to step out again. Uh, but have we been in touch with Atlanta to see how No, not not too much. Maybe we need to make that connection with HR. And

yeah, that's why that's why I posed the question to Miss Fox. and to assist in that uh that there are also allies on commissions uh in other counties such as Clayton at Dic. We already have allyship of uh officials such as yourself that are encouraging the bill and you know we're workshopping the bill as well. Um we actually are workshopping the bill in Clayton County next month next week actually this month is May now. So again, so if you're going to reach out to Atlanta, I would suggest um reaching out to the county commission of Clint County as well, just so you can see a perspective of a different demographic and the same goals. Um we're driving for them as well. So again, like we want to help you all with, you know, answer whatever questions you might have. I know you guys

I have one last

Yes. I just had one last question. Um, could there be something in here that implements time limits? Explain what you mean by that. Um, for convicted felonies, the length of time since they they've been convicted. Exactly. Because um here I'm a retired parole officer and this was 90% of my job trying to get people that re-entered into the community a job because no one wants to hire them. Yeah. Everyone has an idea of why they shouldn't have a job, right? But who wants to take care of them?

They have to have the ability to take care of themselves. And even when you improve and you go to school and you do all these things, people still won't hire you for a job. Just like she's saying, that doesn't create safety in the society. What it causes is recidivism because you got to go back to what you know in order to live because nobody can live for free, right? It creates homelessness and we didn't talk about that today at all. But in um housing, if you're a convicted felon,

places you can't go, you can't rent, you can't buy, you can't do. So, all of these things need to be taken in consideration. I think time limits too will help some people. Um, you committed your crime 30 years ago and you're still paying the penalty for it. It's it's ridiculous. Time limited time.

Okay. So, again y'all, we have reached the hour mark for this workshop. At the beginning of our intention, we said we were going to take our time and create a good policy. We're going to continue to do that. Um, we have been taking notes. We have a good idea of how we want to move forward or what we need to be addressing at our next work session. Um, as we did last time, please check your emails, check the uh city's Facebook page regularly because the public notice for our next work session will come out at our next work session. We're just going to we're going to part part two to this. We're going to look at the the conversation that we had today. Our HR department is going to bring us back recommendations along with recommendations from legal. We're going to talk through it again. We're going to work through this until we get Yes, sir. We're going to work through this until we get a good policy on the table. Make sure before you leave that you sign in so that you can be a part of the communication process. Uh and with that being said, if there are no more questions, comments, or concerns for the good of the order, we're going to adjourn this work session. Thank you all very much. Thank you guys.