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?”