BostonWorkersAlliance.org
Posted Friday, August 1, 2008
The CORI reform bill H. #5004 expired last Thursday July 31st upon the conclusion of the 2008 formal legislative season. Despite positive signaling from House leadership, the bill was sent to the Ways and Means Committee and was never reported out for a vote. While the legislature’s failure to enact reforms was disappointing, the CORI bill adopted by the Judiciary Committee represented a major breakthrough for our movement.
Most notably, H. #5004 included our “ban the box” proposal, which would remove the criminal record question from all job applications in the state. Removing the check box would end upfront discrimination against applicants who posses the necessary skills and character for a job. This provision was secured through an unrelenting public pressure campaign, and brought us closer to being the first state in the country to banning the initial question for all employers.
While HB #5004 included sealing reductions (5 and 10 years) and our “ban the box” proposals, the omnibus bill was saddled with regressive criminal justice provisions that ultimately derailed its passage. Specifically, the bill included a plan to make parole supervision mandatory for all prisoners who were sentenced to over 1 year in jail. The expansion of parole would be costly, and would increase the likelihood that prisoners were re-incarcerated due to technical violations, rather than any new offenses.
With only 4 days between the bill’s unveiling and the end of the session, it became clear that HB #5004 would only pass if both chambers accepted the bill without amendments. While the House was geared to pass the bill, the Senate’s more progressive leaders were resistant to accepting the package at face value. In the end, the lack of time, the regressive parole section, and conflict between the two chambers blocked our coalition’s efforts to pass reforms this season.
While legislative efforts are now on hold until January 2009, our grassroots coalition has made undeniable strides towards tangible CORI relief. In the last 3 months since the statewide “Walk to Freedom” from Worcester to Boston, we have met with over 100 legislators and secured a clear majority of supporters in both the House and the Senate. Our coalition and allies have generated thousands of telephone calls and letters that have elevated CORI reform to the forefront of our legislature’s agenda.
In the last two weeks, hundreds of concerned constituents walked the halls of the State House to tell their CORI stories and to plea for reforms in the system. Without a doubt, those suffering from CORI discrimination and their many allies will be back next January with stronger and more militant advocacy. The next 5 months will be used to expand our public buy-in and to dispel the misinformation deployed by the opposition group, Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM).
Representatives Byron Rushing, Frank Smizik, Gloria Fox and Benjamin Swan should be thanked for their leadership in the House on this issue. Governor Patrick should be commended for introducing a CORI bill, but should be moved towards more substantive and vocal leadership next session.
The Boston Workers’ Alliance is grateful to the 80+ organizational endorsers of the CORI reform campaign. We expect to hold a major CORI reform summit in the fall, and hope that you and yours will join us in the next step of our movement. Thank you to our partners - most notably EPOCA, Neighbor to Neighbor and Mass Law Reform Institute - for their dedicated leadership in this modern civil rights struggle. Thank you to MARC, Councilor Turner, AFSC, and the Stanley Jones Clean Slate Project for laying the foundation for this now flourishing coalition.
We fight for a day when our members can work and support their families with dignity, and are judged by the content of their charcter rather than by the mark of a criminal record. Thank you for your diligent pariticpation in our movement for jobs, freedom and fairness. With your continued support, we look forward to moving our coalition to victory in 2009.
Tuesday, August 5, 2008
A second chance for ex-cons
Source
EX-OFFENDERS can face a grim choice: Get a low-wage job that doesn’t pay the bills or commit better-paying crimes — such as selling drugs — that could land them back in jail. They need better options.
Governor Patrick sought to help with a bill that would reform the state’s Criminal Offender Record Information system by sealing criminal records sooner, so that job candidates wouldn’t be dogged by past crimes. (This would not apply to sex offenders.)
The bill died at the end of the legislative session. ‘‘We just ran out time,’’ Patrick said. He predicts it will be a priority next session.
But legislation is just one avenue of help for ex-offenders.
‘‘We want people to look at the ex-offender differently,’’ says Benjamin Thompson, the former executive director of STRIVE/Boston Employment Service, a local nonprofit. He points to the short-sightedness of imagining that every ex-offender is a violent time bomb, when in fact many have committed nonviolent crimes for what he calls ‘‘economic reasons.’’
Thompson also thinks ex-offenders have to be willing to say, ‘‘I’m going to work as hard as I’ve sinned.’’ So STRIVE is using a $58,000 federal grant to send 14 ex-offenders to Bunker Hill Community College. They’ll hold jobs and take two classes.
Ex-offenders who earn at least $15 an hour, Thompson says, make better decisions about their lives.
Once CORI reform is in place, lawmakers should call for more ex-offender college programs and job placement assistance. Philanthropists could provide funds to expand the program and cover unexpected bills for basics such as healthcare.
With support, ex-offenders could become community staples: strong workers, parents, and taxpayers.
EX-OFFENDERS can face a grim choice: Get a low-wage job that doesn’t pay the bills or commit better-paying crimes — such as selling drugs — that could land them back in jail. They need better options.
Governor Patrick sought to help with a bill that would reform the state’s Criminal Offender Record Information system by sealing criminal records sooner, so that job candidates wouldn’t be dogged by past crimes. (This would not apply to sex offenders.)
The bill died at the end of the legislative session. ‘‘We just ran out time,’’ Patrick said. He predicts it will be a priority next session.
But legislation is just one avenue of help for ex-offenders.
‘‘We want people to look at the ex-offender differently,’’ says Benjamin Thompson, the former executive director of STRIVE/Boston Employment Service, a local nonprofit. He points to the short-sightedness of imagining that every ex-offender is a violent time bomb, when in fact many have committed nonviolent crimes for what he calls ‘‘economic reasons.’’
Thompson also thinks ex-offenders have to be willing to say, ‘‘I’m going to work as hard as I’ve sinned.’’ So STRIVE is using a $58,000 federal grant to send 14 ex-offenders to Bunker Hill Community College. They’ll hold jobs and take two classes.
Ex-offenders who earn at least $15 an hour, Thompson says, make better decisions about their lives.
Once CORI reform is in place, lawmakers should call for more ex-offender college programs and job placement assistance. Philanthropists could provide funds to expand the program and cover unexpected bills for basics such as healthcare.
With support, ex-offenders could become community staples: strong workers, parents, and taxpayers.
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Is AIM advocating illegal discrimination?
According to the Associated Industries of Massachusetts website and an AIM press release written by the Executive Vice President of Government Affairs at the Associated Industries of Massachusetts, John R. Regan, they are advocating that employers use non-conviction CORI data during the hiring process. Using non-conviction CORI data to disqualify a job applicant is illegal in Massachusetts.
AIM surprisingly also advocated against legislation (HB 5004) that would make convicted sex offenders ineligible from ever sealing their CORI records.
From AIM Website: "AIM argued that limiting access to criminal and felony records places the employer, employees, clients and the public at significant risk. In many cases, in order to have a CORI background in Massachusetts an individual may have committed several offenses, prior to being caught or convicted. That scenario is true especially for sex offenders."
According to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 15l B, Section 4; 804 CMR 3.01 this information cannot be used in the decision making during the hiring process.
"Employers may not ask about, maintain a record of, or base any employment decision on the following information if they have requested it:
Arrests or prosecution that did not lead to a conviction;"
We at corireform.com will continue to fight against this type of illegal discrimination advocated by AIM. This fight is far from over.
AIM surprisingly also advocated against legislation (HB 5004) that would make convicted sex offenders ineligible from ever sealing their CORI records.
From AIM Website: "AIM argued that limiting access to criminal and felony records places the employer, employees, clients and the public at significant risk. In many cases, in order to have a CORI background in Massachusetts an individual may have committed several offenses, prior to being caught or convicted. That scenario is true especially for sex offenders."
According to Massachusetts General Laws Chapter 15l B, Section 4; 804 CMR 3.01 this information cannot be used in the decision making during the hiring process.
"Employers may not ask about, maintain a record of, or base any employment decision on the following information if they have requested it:
Arrests or prosecution that did not lead to a conviction;"
We at corireform.com will continue to fight against this type of illegal discrimination advocated by AIM. This fight is far from over.
Friday, August 1, 2008
CORI Bill Stalls in House Ways and Means, Advocates Vow Rematch
by Jason Pramas (Staff), Aug-01-08
http://www.openmediaboston.org/node/263
BOSTON/Beacon Hill - The hopes of advocates for the passage of a criminal justice bill (House Bill 5004 "An Act to Improve Certain Criminal Justice Matters") that would have reformed the controversial Criminal Records Information System were dashed this week when the House Ways and Means Committee failed to report the bill out favorably for a vote on the House floor. With the current 2 year session of the Massachusetts legislature now essentially over, the bill will have to be refiled for the next session later this year.
"We're obviously disappointed that we weren't able to pass a bill this session, but we consider getting the ban the box proposal into the bill a major step forward," said Aaron Tanaka of the pro-CORI reform organization Boston Workers Alliance in reference to the section of the bill that would end the standard employer practice of putting a check-off box on employment applications asking applicants if they have ever committed a crime.
The main CORI reform provision of the bill would have reduced the time former criminals would have to wait to have their criminal records sealed from 15 years after time served for felony convictions to 10 years, and from 10 years for misdemeanor convictions to 5 years.
Tanaka continued, "We should be a stronger position to pass a better bill in the next session. What we found is that there's strong support for CORI reform on both sides of the chamber the issue that ended up derailing the bill was the mandatory parole supervision that was included in the criminal justice package"
According to advocates, the bill was primarily defeated by wrangling between the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee State Representative Eugene L. O'Flaherty - who attempted to add a "poison pill" provision to the bill that would have mandated that all criminals incarcerated for 1 year or more would have to complete parole for the greater of 9 months or 25% of time served - and House and Senate bill supporters who pointed out that adding such a provision would essentially defeat the purpose of the CORI reform provisions of the bill since recidivism rates are much higher for former criminals on parole than off.
Despite strong support for the CORI provisions in both the House and Senate, and a nod from Governor Deval Patrick, O'Flaherty and his legislative allies were able to derail the bill before it got to a House vote.
In addition to the legislative opponents there were also some powerful organizational detractors of the bill, notably the state's main business lobby, Associated Industries of Massachusetts.
AIM's executive vice-president for government affairs, John R. Regan, released a letter to area press last week expressing employer concerns that passage of CORI reforms would weaken employers ability to know about the criminal histories of job applicants.
In a phone interview, Regan elaborated, "It's not a secret that we had concerns with the bill. I would state that there were things we did support. Steps to make sure data in the system was accurate. I understand the computer system they use to store this stuff is quite old. Upgrading the system, we'd support that. Increased training for employers on how to read the CORI reports - to make sure everyone is reading the reports correctly.
"The things we were concerned about include the sealing of records containing public information," Regan concluded. "And I think that related to that concern was making sure employers have sufficient info to make a well informed decision about any job candidate."
It is unclear if the two camps will come any closer to accord in the next session. But one thing is certain, the Boston Workers Alliance and other advocates for the rights of former criminals in the job market will be back for another go starting later this year.
http://www.openmediaboston.org/node/263
BOSTON/Beacon Hill - The hopes of advocates for the passage of a criminal justice bill (House Bill 5004 "An Act to Improve Certain Criminal Justice Matters") that would have reformed the controversial Criminal Records Information System were dashed this week when the House Ways and Means Committee failed to report the bill out favorably for a vote on the House floor. With the current 2 year session of the Massachusetts legislature now essentially over, the bill will have to be refiled for the next session later this year.
"We're obviously disappointed that we weren't able to pass a bill this session, but we consider getting the ban the box proposal into the bill a major step forward," said Aaron Tanaka of the pro-CORI reform organization Boston Workers Alliance in reference to the section of the bill that would end the standard employer practice of putting a check-off box on employment applications asking applicants if they have ever committed a crime.
The main CORI reform provision of the bill would have reduced the time former criminals would have to wait to have their criminal records sealed from 15 years after time served for felony convictions to 10 years, and from 10 years for misdemeanor convictions to 5 years.
Tanaka continued, "We should be a stronger position to pass a better bill in the next session. What we found is that there's strong support for CORI reform on both sides of the chamber the issue that ended up derailing the bill was the mandatory parole supervision that was included in the criminal justice package"
According to advocates, the bill was primarily defeated by wrangling between the Chair of the House Judiciary Committee State Representative Eugene L. O'Flaherty - who attempted to add a "poison pill" provision to the bill that would have mandated that all criminals incarcerated for 1 year or more would have to complete parole for the greater of 9 months or 25% of time served - and House and Senate bill supporters who pointed out that adding such a provision would essentially defeat the purpose of the CORI reform provisions of the bill since recidivism rates are much higher for former criminals on parole than off.
Despite strong support for the CORI provisions in both the House and Senate, and a nod from Governor Deval Patrick, O'Flaherty and his legislative allies were able to derail the bill before it got to a House vote.
In addition to the legislative opponents there were also some powerful organizational detractors of the bill, notably the state's main business lobby, Associated Industries of Massachusetts.
AIM's executive vice-president for government affairs, John R. Regan, released a letter to area press last week expressing employer concerns that passage of CORI reforms would weaken employers ability to know about the criminal histories of job applicants.
In a phone interview, Regan elaborated, "It's not a secret that we had concerns with the bill. I would state that there were things we did support. Steps to make sure data in the system was accurate. I understand the computer system they use to store this stuff is quite old. Upgrading the system, we'd support that. Increased training for employers on how to read the CORI reports - to make sure everyone is reading the reports correctly.
"The things we were concerned about include the sealing of records containing public information," Regan concluded. "And I think that related to that concern was making sure employers have sufficient info to make a well informed decision about any job candidate."
It is unclear if the two camps will come any closer to accord in the next session. But one thing is certain, the Boston Workers Alliance and other advocates for the rights of former criminals in the job market will be back for another go starting later this year.
The Democrats Fail To Pass CORI Reform……….Again!
08/01/2008
corireform.com
We should be familiar with this story by now. Year after year the Democratic super majority in the Massachusetts Legislature appear to be poised to pass a CORI reform bill just to let it die quietly. This year was no different. H.B. 5004 offered minor CORI reform change but it was a positive bill nonetheless.
We still live in a state where a non-conviction record cannot be sealed for 10-15 years and workers will continue to be discriminated against. It doesn’t matter much to the Democrats on Beacon Hill that innocent people are barred from working in MA as long as they get the financial support of big business to finance their re-election campaigns.
Business groups like the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) filled the campaign coffers of our elected officials for their re-election bids as we watched any hope we had to end this discrimination fall by the wayside. This is something we should not and cannot forget when election time rolls around.
corireform.com
We should be familiar with this story by now. Year after year the Democratic super majority in the Massachusetts Legislature appear to be poised to pass a CORI reform bill just to let it die quietly. This year was no different. H.B. 5004 offered minor CORI reform change but it was a positive bill nonetheless.
We still live in a state where a non-conviction record cannot be sealed for 10-15 years and workers will continue to be discriminated against. It doesn’t matter much to the Democrats on Beacon Hill that innocent people are barred from working in MA as long as they get the financial support of big business to finance their re-election campaigns.
Business groups like the Associated Industries of Massachusetts (AIM) filled the campaign coffers of our elected officials for their re-election bids as we watched any hope we had to end this discrimination fall by the wayside. This is something we should not and cannot forget when election time rolls around.
Fighting Back!
http://www.touchfm.org/corireform.html
Boycott companies that discriminate because of CORI. Click the image below for more information.
Click here for more information about CORI REFORM
Boycott companies that discriminate because of CORI. Click the image below for more information.
Click here for more information about CORI REFORM
Wednesday, July 30, 2008
Businesses winning CORI fight
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 12:36 PM EDT Modified: Wednesday, July 30, 2008 - 12:56 PM
Boston Business Journal - by Lisa van der Pool Boston Business Journal
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2008/07/28/daily44.html
A provision in the Criminal Offender Record Information system (CORI) reform bill that would allow ex-cons looking for jobs to seal their records years earlier than historically allowed has some business leaders arguing that, if passed, the law could put companies and their employees at risk.
Indications are that their concerns were heard. House Bill 5004, “An Act improving certain criminal justice matters,” known as the CORI reform bill, appears poised to die by week’s end.
One of the most controversial provisions in the bill, which was up for debate in the House Ways and Means Committee this week, is that fact that it would shorten the mandatory waiting period for former inmates seeking to seal their criminal records. The waiting period for felonies, which include murder, rape, aggravated assault, battery and embezzlement, would be reduced to 10 years, from 15 years. The waiting period for misdemeanors, which include prostitution, vandalism, and petty theft, would be reduced to five years, down from 10.
Gov. Deval Patrick has publicly championed the proposed bill as a way to enhance crime prevention by helping former convicts rebuild their lives. Other provisions include an increase in fines for misuse of CORI records to $5,000 from $500.
A variety of sentencing changes are also included in the bill.
Business leaders are split on the bill’s potential effects on companies and hiring practices if it passes. One side claims the reforms would allow dangerous ex-cons to enter the workforce, unbeknownst to employers. The other side says that if former inmates are blocked out of finding legitimate work, they have a greater chances of re-entering lives of crime.
About 2.8 million people in Massachusetts have CORI records and about 1.5 million CORI reports are produced each year, according to the Massachusetts Alliance to Reform CORI in Boston. CORI checks can present a challenge for former inmates to secure employment, housing loans, and even entrance to college, according to MARC.
The Associated Industries of Massachusetts, which represents more than 7,000 employers in the state, has come out against many of the provisions in the bill, saying that decreasing the time that information is available about ex-cons would make workplaces unsafe.
AIM sent a letter last week to House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi addressing various concerns about the bill.
According to AIM’s letter, the bill “provides no balance of risk and liability for the employer. Employers are justifiably concerned relative to the liability for negligent hiring practices.... Employers could not research a candidate’s criminal background and would be unable to screen properly, candidates that work independently and without close supervision, especially with at-risk clients and other vulnerable individuals,” reads the letter.
John Regan, executive vice president of government affairs at AIM, who penned the letter to DiMasi, challenges the common wisdom that if someone has a criminal record, he or she will never get a job.
“Having a criminal record does provide a challenge, but it’s not insurmountable,” said Regan. “The courts of the Commonwealth are public domain. What happens in those courts are a matter of public record and the sealing of public information ought to be done very prudently.”
Bill Vernon, the Massachusetts director of the National Federation of Independent Business in Boston, agrees that a tough stance should be taken with ex-cons.
“The bottom line is that any time you hide things and don’t have full information, it’s not helpful,” said Vernon. “Business owners should have information available to make a judgement. When does an embezzlement conviction become irrelevant to whether someone is hired to become a bank teller?”
Yet, some in the business community agree that former inmates should not be punished after they have served a full sentence.
“I just don’t think it’s a particularly efficient way of predicting a person’s propensity for violence in the workplace,” said Christine Hughes, vice president and general counsel of Emerson College. “I think the reason that most employers do criminal checks is either you’re obliged to under law because you’re serving a vulnerable population, as we are, or because it’s the standard of care for responsible hiring.”
Both the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Boston Bar Association support the CORI bill.
“The idea of sealing records earlier is something that fits in with the larger goals of getting people who are former inmates into the workforce,” said David W. White, president of the MBA. “It’s important to give people the chance to prove themselves to society. The big exception is for places like hospitals, where the people are vulnerable. There has to be a higher level of screening there.”
Tom Nolan, an associate professor of criminal justice at Boston University and a 27-year veteran of the Boston Police force, notes that CORI reports are often misinterpreted by employers, with arraignments being mistaken for a conviction.
“The purpose of punishing people is to ensure they don’t do it again. That’s a big part of why we put people in jail,” said Nolan. “At some point the question arises of, how long do we want to keep people in the penalty box?”
Boston Business Journal - by Lisa van der Pool Boston Business Journal
http://www.bizjournals.com/boston/stories/2008/07/28/daily44.html
A provision in the Criminal Offender Record Information system (CORI) reform bill that would allow ex-cons looking for jobs to seal their records years earlier than historically allowed has some business leaders arguing that, if passed, the law could put companies and their employees at risk.
Indications are that their concerns were heard. House Bill 5004, “An Act improving certain criminal justice matters,” known as the CORI reform bill, appears poised to die by week’s end.
One of the most controversial provisions in the bill, which was up for debate in the House Ways and Means Committee this week, is that fact that it would shorten the mandatory waiting period for former inmates seeking to seal their criminal records. The waiting period for felonies, which include murder, rape, aggravated assault, battery and embezzlement, would be reduced to 10 years, from 15 years. The waiting period for misdemeanors, which include prostitution, vandalism, and petty theft, would be reduced to five years, down from 10.
Gov. Deval Patrick has publicly championed the proposed bill as a way to enhance crime prevention by helping former convicts rebuild their lives. Other provisions include an increase in fines for misuse of CORI records to $5,000 from $500.
A variety of sentencing changes are also included in the bill.
Business leaders are split on the bill’s potential effects on companies and hiring practices if it passes. One side claims the reforms would allow dangerous ex-cons to enter the workforce, unbeknownst to employers. The other side says that if former inmates are blocked out of finding legitimate work, they have a greater chances of re-entering lives of crime.
About 2.8 million people in Massachusetts have CORI records and about 1.5 million CORI reports are produced each year, according to the Massachusetts Alliance to Reform CORI in Boston. CORI checks can present a challenge for former inmates to secure employment, housing loans, and even entrance to college, according to MARC.
The Associated Industries of Massachusetts, which represents more than 7,000 employers in the state, has come out against many of the provisions in the bill, saying that decreasing the time that information is available about ex-cons would make workplaces unsafe.
AIM sent a letter last week to House Speaker Salvatore DiMasi addressing various concerns about the bill.
According to AIM’s letter, the bill “provides no balance of risk and liability for the employer. Employers are justifiably concerned relative to the liability for negligent hiring practices.... Employers could not research a candidate’s criminal background and would be unable to screen properly, candidates that work independently and without close supervision, especially with at-risk clients and other vulnerable individuals,” reads the letter.
John Regan, executive vice president of government affairs at AIM, who penned the letter to DiMasi, challenges the common wisdom that if someone has a criminal record, he or she will never get a job.
“Having a criminal record does provide a challenge, but it’s not insurmountable,” said Regan. “The courts of the Commonwealth are public domain. What happens in those courts are a matter of public record and the sealing of public information ought to be done very prudently.”
Bill Vernon, the Massachusetts director of the National Federation of Independent Business in Boston, agrees that a tough stance should be taken with ex-cons.
“The bottom line is that any time you hide things and don’t have full information, it’s not helpful,” said Vernon. “Business owners should have information available to make a judgement. When does an embezzlement conviction become irrelevant to whether someone is hired to become a bank teller?”
Yet, some in the business community agree that former inmates should not be punished after they have served a full sentence.
“I just don’t think it’s a particularly efficient way of predicting a person’s propensity for violence in the workplace,” said Christine Hughes, vice president and general counsel of Emerson College. “I think the reason that most employers do criminal checks is either you’re obliged to under law because you’re serving a vulnerable population, as we are, or because it’s the standard of care for responsible hiring.”
Both the Massachusetts Bar Association and the Boston Bar Association support the CORI bill.
“The idea of sealing records earlier is something that fits in with the larger goals of getting people who are former inmates into the workforce,” said David W. White, president of the MBA. “It’s important to give people the chance to prove themselves to society. The big exception is for places like hospitals, where the people are vulnerable. There has to be a higher level of screening there.”
Tom Nolan, an associate professor of criminal justice at Boston University and a 27-year veteran of the Boston Police force, notes that CORI reports are often misinterpreted by employers, with arraignments being mistaken for a conviction.
“The purpose of punishing people is to ensure they don’t do it again. That’s a big part of why we put people in jail,” said Nolan. “At some point the question arises of, how long do we want to keep people in the penalty box?”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
