TKC MUST READ!!! FIRST PERSON REPORT ON THE UNSTOPPABLE PROGRESS OF THE KANSAS CITY "BAN THE BOX" ORDINANCE!!!

Kansas City politicos seem to have their mind made up on the "Ban The Box" ordinance and once again testimony from the public seems mostly perfunctory.

To wit . . .

CHECK THIS BREAKING NEWS 1ST PERSON REPORT ON THE PROGRESS OF "BAN THE BOX" AT CITY HALL!!!

So far the TKC BLOG COMMUNITY has been FIRST to deliver all of the news on this effort. The legislation moved forward and out of committee this afternoon. And now . . .

Thomas R. Alber remains committed to keeping Kansas City safe and not only notes that this effort is mostly meaningless but also continues to highlight the obvious flaws with the felony forgiveness gesture.

Check it:

First Person Report From City Hall On The Progress Of The Ban The Box Movement

As a father of four, I teach my children to work hard, study and keep your nose clean. After today’s combined committee hearing it is apparently a little less sound advice to be giving them.

I was able to attend the “combined committee hearing” in Kansas City this morning. After opening statements from Council member Circo, Councilmember Brooks, Councilmember Reed, Councilmember Marcason it was obvious the hearing was merely a “check the procedural block” and their decision regarding this issue had already been made. Councilman Taylor made it clear he had reservations regarding the proposed ordinance.

Opening testimony from Kansas City’s HR managers noted that removing the box from job applications “would not change the city’s hiring policy”. It was also noted that it could “possibly delay the hiring process” due to placing the background disclosure/check at the end of the process instead of the front. This seems to be counter to the emphasis of streamlining procedure and efficiently filling open city positions.

This immediately raises some questions:

First, if two qualified applicants apply for the same position. One with no criminal background and one with a yet undiscovered criminal background. The candidate with no criminal history is not selected to move forward. Does that mean the applicant (who is later found to be disqualified due to the criminal history) could eliminate the now only qualified applicant from the process? Isn’t that potentially discriminatory against the candidate with no criminal conviction?

Second, if this is “not a change to city hiring policy” why are we just passing legislation? Just take the question off of the application, which is an administrative action not requiring a new city ordinance. Shouldn’t the department heads that do not process applications of applicants with criminal convictions be disciplined for failing to follow city-hiring policy?

Third, If the legislation does not delete the necessity for background checks of past criminal history, and the City’s policy is not to “immediately eliminate the candidates with criminal backgrounds” are we not just prolonging the denial of the job and “stringing along” the candidate who thought they had a chance?

And finally, If we are looking to adopt a city ordinance that does not change city hiring policy, is potentially discriminatory against applicants with no criminal history and does not require a city ordinance to take the language off of the application why are we really doing it?

Respectfully,
Thomas R. Alber
############