SF Human Rights Commission

• text only
• text

Employment Advisory Committee Meetings

EMPLOYMENT COMMITTEE

MINUTES

SPECIAL MEETING

JUNE 2, 2005

Members Present

Commissioner Faye Woo Lee, Jerry Jones, Ronnie Rhoe, Bridgett N. Brown, F. Ross Woodall, Molly Baier, Suzanne Korey, John Crowley

Members Absent

Malik Looper

Staff Present

Frank Anderson, Marcus Arana, Linda Chin, Kabir Hypolite, Mary Gin Starkweather,

Guests

Panel Members:

Linda Evans, Organizer – All of Us or None

Elaine Lee, Principal Personnel Analyst - CCSF Department of Human Resources

Demarris Evans, Esq., Administrator, Clean Slate Program – Office of the Public Defender

Tiffany Trammell - Center for Young Women’s Development

John Irwin, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus, San Francisco State University

Guests in the Audience

Keith Butler, Suzanne Buy, Anna Couey, Alice DaValle, Elder Freeman, Jane Jackson, James Lockett, Sussanna Majano, Demetria McCain, I. Moore, Sitara Nieves, Dorsey Nunn, Cassie Pierson, Liz Sholley, Misha Smith, Jon Stingley, Walker Tauber, Mary Phoebe VanderHorst, Jawanna Victoria, Roger White, S. Zimmermann

Call to Order/ Roll Call

The Special Meeting of the Employment Committee was called to order at 5:30p.m. in City Hall, Room 416. A quorum was present.

Approval of the Special Meeting Agenda

F. Ross Woodall moved to adopt the special meeting agenda: Panel Discussion Regarding Proposal By "All of Us or None" regarding: Disclosure of Felony Convictions on the Application for Employment with the City and County of San Francisco. Ronnie Rhoe seconded and the motion was carried unanimously with no discussion.

Approval of May 5, 2005 Employment Committee Minutes

John Crowley moved to adopt the May 5, 2005 Employment Committee Minutes. F. Ross Woodall seconded and the motion was carried unanimously with no discussion.

Public Comment for items not on the Agenda

There were none.

Commissioner’s Report

Commissioner Fay Woo Lee welcomed the Distinguished Panel Members, Committee Members, staff and audience. This is a special meeting to discuss issues relating to discrimination against formerly incarcerated people. Commissioner Lee introduced each committee member and also introduced Kabir Hypolite, moderator for the evening.

Moderator for the Panel Discussion

Kabir Hypolite - Moderator for the evening stated the process for the panel discussion and reminded people to please turn off their cellular phones. Mr. Hypolite stated the following: The purpose of this meeting is to educate and inform the committee members and members of the public regarding the discrimination that formerly incarcerated people face. There will not be any votes taken tonight. But at the next Employment Committee meeting on August 4, 2005, this action item will be on the agenda. The issue at hand is whether or not, the HRC Employment Advisory Committee members shall urge that the full Commission recommend to the Human Resources Department to alter the application and hiring process to accommodate the needs of the formerly incarcerated. Formerly incarcerated people often face employment discrimination because of their prior felony history. Therefore, the main purpose is to see what we can possibly do as the City & County of San Francisco to assist in making the hiring process easier.

Mr. Hypolite stated there would be five questions read and these questions would be the topic for the panel discussion. Each panel member had fifteen minutes each to speak. There was a question & answer period for the Employment Advisory Committee members. Also, there was time for public comment from the audience. The panel members were introduced.

The five questions consist of the following:

Old Business

Panel Discussion Regarding Proposal by "All of us or none"- Disclosure of Felony Convictions on the Application for Employment with the City and County of San Francisco.

Linda Evans, Organizer – All of Us or None

Ms. Evans stated the following as a panel presenter:

I served sixteen years in Federal prison and right now, I am employed at Legal Services for Prisoners with Children.

Formerly incarcerated people are the most discriminated-against sector in American society. All of Us or None is a civil rights movement of formerly incarcerated people and our family members. We are here tonight to ask you to prohibit the discrimination in public employment we suffer because of a past criminal record. We came to the Human Rights Commission because we need your support in a struggle for a struggle for our human and civil rights.

San Francisco is a leader in setting anti-discrimination policy. As you are aware, the San Francisco Charter prohibits discrimination on account of a broad spectrum of reasons. However, there are no current protections against discrimination based on past criminal records, which is rampant in San Francisco and all of the United States.

We believe the discrimination that people with past criminal records face in hiring can best be eliminated by changing the initial employment application for the City & County of San Francisco. We are asking the Human Rights Commission to support our efforts to ban the box requiring applicants to answer yes or no to the statement, "I have been convicted by a court of an offense," and then to give details for each past offense regardless of its relevance to the job being sought. We believe you should adopt our resolution for both ethical and practical reasons:

In the interests of fairness and justice, eliminate the box for these reasons:

1. The box unfairly discriminates against people who have a criminal record. We are trying to feed our families, pay rent, and be contributing members of our community. We have completed the punishment mandated by the courts-now we should have an equal chance of employment and housing. We were not sentenced to lifelong punishment. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH.
2. Discrimination against us has a huge impact on our whole community, and disproportionately impacts poor communities of color. If we can’t get jobs, we can’t feed our families or maintain housing, which means our families will be separated. If we can’t get jobs, we won’t have health care because we won’t have access to health insurance. If we can’t get jobs and housing, we won’t qualify for reunification with our children, which will also devastate our families and leave our children in often abusive foster care. The box is one stage in a vicious and destructive cycle of discrimination, disenfranchisement, and disempowerment.
3. According to the Little Hoover Commission, the unemployment rate for people coming out of prison is between 70% and 90%. Ten percent or more of people released from prison have nowhere to go and end up homeless, escalating to between 30% and 50% in urban areas like San Francisco and Los Angeles. These are huge numbers of people, most people of color. Discrimination against us based on past convictions ends up being a cover for racism and racial discrimination.
4. BANNING THE BOX will contribute to public safety because it will promote stable employment and housing in poor communities and communities of color. People who have jobs, health care, and housing are less likely to commit crimes and return to prison. If we can’t get jobs or housing, there is a possibility some of us will be committing crimes and returning to prison, which is one reason for California’s high recidivism rate.
5. Today almost every application for any public service or benefit, for housing and all types of employment, requires that an applicant answer questions about their past criminal history. The appearance of this box on the initial employment application acts as a deterrent to potentially qualified employees who may have unrelated convictions in their past. Because the box requires comprehensive disclosure, many people believe they will automatically be disqualified and are therefore discouraged from seeking employment. The City of San Francisco should be in a position of encouraging all qualified applicants to apply for City jobs.

For these practical reasons, we should ban the box:

1. The box on the employment application is unnecessary. As you will hear from Ms. Lee, the box on the first application is simply used to determine whether an applicant has job-related convictions that could disqualify him or her from eligibility to take the civil service exam for that job. The same function could be served by adding language to the job announcement that would specify which convictions within what time frame would disqualify a person. For example, the announcement for MUNI driver could state, "Convictions for Driving under the Influence within the last 5 years will automatically disqualify a candidate from applying for a job if they had a job-related conviction that would disqualify them from being hired.
2. Changing the process so disqualifying convictions are listed on the job announcement would also fulfill the need for consistent and equal review of all applicants’ qualifications. It would require the Department of Human Resources to specify exactly which job-related convictions are relevant to someone’s ability to perform the job. State and federal laws require that only job-related convictions be considered during an employment process. Currently there are no consistent written policies specifying what convictions and time frame would disqualify and applicant from taking the civil service exam for a specific job.
3. The City would still have the opportunity to ask for disclosure of job-related convictions at the interview stage of the hiring process. The City and County of San Francisco will actually benefit from eliminating this question from the employment application. Eliminating the box will encourage qualified people to apply for public employment rather than be deterred and discouraged. This will result in a larger pool of potentially qualified candidates.
4. Banning the box is necessary because other remedies are insufficient. The legal remedy of expungement is not an option for any crime for which a person was sentenced to state prison. Also, expungement does not remove convictions from a person’s RAP sheet, so the original convictions still appear even though they have been dismissed.

We also believe that the City and County of San Francisco should implement a method of doing criminal background checks that reveal only convictions that are job-related. Currently a criminal background check is done only when a candidate has been selected for a job. The potential employee is fingerprinted and a criminal background check is done. The method used by San Francisco reveals an applicant’s entire criminal record because of the use of RAP sheets ((Record of Arrests and Prosecutions). Use of RAP sheets for criminal background checks reveals every arrest, legally dismissed cases, and detentions without arraignment or conviction to potential employers. This is an unnecessary invasion of the applicant’s privacy. There are no protections against employers considering the entire record rather than limiting themselves to job-related convictions. Banning the box is the only way to safeguard actual implementation of state and federal law.

We appreciate the opportunity to answer your questions and hope that you will assist us in changing San Francisco’s hiring process so it no longer discriminates against people because of past criminal records.

Demarris R Evans – Attorney at Law; Clean Slate Program – Office of the Public Defender

Ms. Evans stated the following as a panel presenter:

I am going to talk about the Clean Slate Program and how the program works to assist people with criminal history records and address the different type records that can be cleared or can be expunged, the types of records that cannot be expunged and a little bit about the procedure as much as I can within the time constraints that we have. And I did leave at the desk, a handout that lists all the eligibility criteria of the Clean Slate Program and the different types of services that we provide. And the Clean Slate Program is basically available to anyone that has been arrested, or convicted in San Francisco, City & County. So, anyone who has a case in San Francisco, City & County can participate in the Clean Slate Program. We do not turn down anyone who has a case in San Francisco, City & County that we can assist. Any exception to that is the Certificate of Rehabilitation, even if the case may have occurred in the City of San Francisco, Certificates of Rehabilitation have to be filed in the County where the individual resides. For that particular service, we assist people who live in San Francisco, City & County even though the conviction could have occurred in a different county in the State of California.

We have clients from all over the country under the Clean Slate Program. This relief can be obtained in any County in California. A person does not have to be here in San Francisco, or come here in San Francisco, in order for us to assist them. Basically, all the communication can be done through phone, through written correspondence. So, we appear in court for people that have San Francisco convictions or arrest even though they live in a different State as long as their case occurred here. The largest category of cases that we handle is expungements of convictions. And that is listed under the first section of the handout. Expungement is having a conviction set aside and dismissed. And probably the most important thing about expungement is about what types of convictions are eligible to be set aside and dismissed. Essentially, any conviction for a misdemeanor or felony that resulted in probation could be set aside and dismissed. The only exception to that is conviction for categories of child molestation. And that is some type of molestation or sexual relation with a child under fourteen years of age. Even if a person receives probation for that type of offense, it cannot be expunged, nor can that individual get a Certificate of Rehabilitation. The only remedy for child molestation offenses is getting a direct pardon from the Governor. Other than that, any offense, a felony or misdemeanor that results in a probation sentence can be expunged. That includes any offense that you can think of, from driving under the influence of alcohol, domestic violence, narcotics, convictions for violence, it could be a strike, a serious felony, as long as the individual received probation, their conviction can be expunged.

So that is the biggest category of cases that we handle, because if vindicated, the conviction can definitely be about employment. The other category of cases that cannot be expunged are any convictions that did not result in probation but instead resulted in commitment to State prison. If someone was committed to State prison, they would not be able to get that conviction expunged and the conviction would remain on their record forever. Under the rule that exists now, a commitment to State prison or a conviction that resulted to a commitment to State prison could not be expunged.

What someone could do is get a Certificate of Rehabilitation, which is listed under the third category of services that we provide. The Certificate of Rehabilitation does not take away the conviction. The conviction still remains. Basically, the Superior Court Judge makes a recommendation that the individual be pardoned by the Governor. Once the Certificate of Rehabilitation is granted it is forwarded to the Governor’s office as part of the application, and the recommendation that the person be pardoned and it becomes the official documentation that this person has been declared rehabilitated by the Superior Court Judge. And the requirements for that are listed on the handout as well. Essentially, it requires seven years of rehabilitation. The other important thing about expungement is that once the conviction has been expunged, it can no longer be used as a ban to employment. There are only two exceptions that I am aware of, where convictions that have been expunged, are employment in a health care facility and employment for a law enforcement position. Other than that, arrests that did not result in a conviction, including expunged convictions because once it has been expunged, the conviction is no longer considered a conviction and cannot be used as a ban to employment. And that is indicated on the application and is available to be handed out also. Once the conviction has been expunged, you are no longer required to disclose in the employment application. The employment application specifically indicates that if the conviction has been expunged, then you need not list it. You need not answer "yes" to that question, "Have you ever been convicted?"

The other service that we assist with is assisting someone to get his/her arrest record sealed and destroyed. This is an extremely limited remedy. Unlike juvenile records, which can be sealed completely, adult records can only be sealed based on a finding as factual innocence or a stipulation by the District Attorney’s office and the Police Department. If there is no stipulation by the Police Department and/or the District Attorney’s office, then the only way to have the arrest record sealed is for the Superior Court Judge to find that the individual is "factually innocent" of the charge they were arrested for. This is an extremely limited remedy. However, we also assist people with getting their records sealed and destroyed for all who qualify under this relief.

We also assist with Certificates of Rehabilitation. We assist people in helping their probation terminate early. This is also somewhat limited. Usually, the judge will only terminate someone’s probation early if there is an agreement that the probation be terminated early or if there is some dire circumstance, such as a person that has a job offer but can only accept if he or she is not on probation or something similar to that. We also assist people with getting felonies reduced to misdemeanors.

Those are all the services that we provide. And it is very important that people know about this relief that is available. A lot of people who have convictions that are eligible to be expunged don’t know that this relief is available. We urge and encourage everyone here today, if you know anyone that has been convicted of an assault that has been arrested in San Francisco or any other County. This relief is available in every county in the State of California to have their conviction expunged and set aside so that they are not precluded from any employment opportunities.

The problem is those individuals who were convicted and committed to State prison. The state of the law as it exists today is wholly inadequate in addressing that population as individuals. The Public Defender’s Office and Clean Slate Program is working on legislation and proposals to suggest that the expungement procedure & processes be expanded so that individuals who were committed to State prison can still get their convictions set aside so that the rehabilitation of someone that has been sentenced to State prison is also recognized, because of the number of employers, private and government that will not hire an individual that has a conviction. And although in San Francisco, where some exceptions are made, some people with convictions are still hired. It is still very difficult. A lot of the clients that I work with are constantly facing real hardships because of their criminal history past, similar to what Linda Evans had stated today. And a lot of times a person committed to ten to fifteen years in State prison has long been completely rehabilitated after so many years. And for that conviction to be not eligible to be set aside is just not acceptable at this day and age. And with the heightened security measures and background checks as a result of the Patriot Act being passed and the limited offers of employment that are being made following the Sept 11, 2003 incident and the resulting legislation that followed the incident. Laws have not been updated as far as expungement, and Certificates of Rehabilitation. They have not been updated and expanded to complement and respond to the update and expand laws through the Patriot Act. And that is what needs to happen today. We are in the process of working with other agencies, expand the law so that formerly incarcerated people can also not continue to face discrimination that Linda Evans described. And this proposal here today is one way to try to address that issue and also try to get their lives amended and get some new legislation out there that would recognize that the rehabilitation of people that have been sentenced to State prison are not alone.

John Irwin, Ph.D., Professor Emeritus at San Francisco State University and author of six books

Dr. Irwin stated the following as a panel presenter:

I was incarcerated and served five years in the California prison back in the 1950s. I got out of prison, went to school, and finally became a professor. In fact, my Ph.D. was based on a study of the mechanical prison system. I continued the study on the prison system for fifteen years. One of my books just got published. That’s why I mentioned that I have another book.

Linda Evans did such a marvelous job explaining the problems of the formerly incarcerated people and the recommendations she offered should definitely be taken into consideration. I should ask you the question, "What are you supposed to do?" This is a mounting problem. Individuals becoming prisoners have skyrocketed. There were 17,000 people in the California Prisons in 1968-1969. Currently, we have 160,000 prisoners and going up. There are approximately 600,000 people coming out of prison in the country. The problems that people encountered coming out of prison were very, very bad in 1968-1969, but it is ten times worst now.

All of the revenues that have been suggested, processing Clean Slate Programs, Certificates of Rehabilitation, and other kinds of things are not relevant to the problems to a person getting out of prison. A person getting out of prison has immediate problems. In fact, there is a very crucial period in the first month, or two months, or three months, whether on not they can get themselves started, get started on their feet. Employment is the most crucial. There are versions of some of the responses, from the City that sound very, very optimistic and positive, but I just don’t understand. I have a hard time to believe. In my experience doing research, you seldom receive a job in the City. I see a lot of people lose their jobs. You seldom see ex-convicts driving buses in San Francisco. Of all the employment in the City, how many are ex-convicts? The City is not concerned about this problem and they are part of the problem. The City should do something to make it possible for people to stay out of prison.

People coming out of prison are limited because they have no resources. Typically they need to report to a patrol officer and are referred to low, low paying jobs. The low paying jobs that are available to them are with companies that normally do not hire them full time. The majority hire them part time, so medical insurance is not provided. What they may discover in a few weeks, or in a month or two, the formerly incarcerated may cop out. Regrettably, some may descend down to a dependency to derelict action, down to skid row.

This problem is getting worse and worse. Somebody has to respond. The City of San Francisco with its commitment should do something about this problem. Support the proposal recommended by All of Us or None.

Tiffany Trammell – Center for Young Women’s Development

Ms. Trammell stated the following as a panel presenter:

I was convicted of a felony misdemeanor in 2002 for retaliating against the father of my child after being abused by him for three years. I was housed in the San Francisco County Jail and was released after six months. I was homeless and unemployed. Before the first conviction, I had two jobs and was a resident of California. Upon release, I had to find employment and housing for my child and myself.

I convinced myself that the only way to be official in finding a job was to be honest on my application, which meant to check yes on the box when it asked about my conviction. I was frustrated. After six months and twenty applications completed, I was still unemployed and did not get at least one interview. I was frustrated and decided to check "No" when they asked about my conviction. The first time I did that on my first application, I got an interview and was hired the next week. I was such a good worker that the supervisors called me in at least once or twice a month to inform me what a good job I was doing. And every time I had thought that they had found out about my criminal record.

In 2004, my housing number had come up at the top of the list and they had to review my application. I received a letter that informed me that my criminal record affected my eligibility for the unit. I was mad. I was given thirty days to appeal.

I now have an apartment in the East Bay and I have a full time job at the Center for Young Women’s Development. Thanks to the organization I now work for that they do not discriminate against people with a criminal record. I wanted to thank the organization, All of Us or None for all the support and to everyone here for the opportunity to speak today.

Elaine Lee – Principal Personnel Analyst; Recruitment and Assessment Division - CCSF Department of Human Resources;

Ms. Lee stated the following as a panel presenter:

There are two different types of hiring practices that the City & County engages in. I am here to give you a look at what we look at as an analyst when he/she has indicated that he/she has been convicted of a situation. In 1980, the Board of Supervisors passed resolution No. 508-80 that authorizes the consideration of criminal history information in determining the qualifications of individuals for employment in order to protect the public and the public interest. There are two types of hiring processes: a permanent civil service hiring process and a provisional hiring process. In order to fill a vacant position with a permanent civil service employee, there must be an existing eligible list. And in order to create an eligible list, we issue a permanent announcement. People who are interested in applying for that examination apply with our application. And in that application, he/she would have indicated whether or not they have been convicted. With respect to the question of convictions, does that mean that individuals are prohibited from moving on to the examination process? We take a look at whether or not the conviction is job related, and we make a recommendation to our supervisor who then also reviews the situation. If someone is rejected due to not meeting the minimal qualifications or due to a conviction, then there is an appeal process that the applicant can use. The applicant is informed in a letter that his or her application has been rejected and the reason for the rejection. Then that applicant is given five days to provide additional information for reconsideration. If after the reconsideration process, the applicant is still not able to proceed to the examination, the applicant can go to the Civil Service Commission. With respect to the appeal process, the final determination rests with the Civil Service Commission. I have to say that in my experience as an examination analyst, I have not seen anyone rejected and prohibited from moving forward to the examination process if that individual has been convicted.

The next step is that the people who meet the minimal qualifications take the examination, and the eligible list is generated. When the department has a vacancy, and there is an existing eligibility list, the department is required to select someone from the eligible list. When the department receives the eligible list and the names on the eligible list, they will send a letter to the individuals on the list and ask them whether or not they are interested in the vacant position. If the applicant is interested, then they would most likely fill out another application and submit it to the department directly. Those applications are reviewed. That is another time in the process where the question regarding convictions is looked at. In my experience when I worked at the San Francisco Unified School District, we did have applications that came in with people who have been convicted for a position such as custodians, or school luncheon helpers. Those applications are reviewed with the hiring manager and I have had several personal cases where people have been hired even though they have been convicted. So when someone is extended an offer of employment, the individual goes through a process that includes being fingerprinted. And the individual’s fingerprint information is submitted to the Department of Justice and as Ms. Evans mentioned earlier, the Department of Human Resources receives a RAP sheet (Record of Arrests and Prosecutions) back if there is a positive response from the Department of Justice. We share the RAP sheet information with the hiring department and a determination is made by the hiring department as to whether or not to proceed with the selected individual.

In a provisional hiring process, the eligible list does not exist. That means an examination has not been given for that classification. In that case, when the department has a vacancy, they will issue an announcement directly and post it. And anyone who is interested could apply and they apply directly to the department. And again, the applications are reviewed and interviews are held and someone is selected. And the rest of the hiring process is as described earlier. When an applicant has indicated that he/she has been convicted, the examination analyst or the Department of Human Resources representative will view each situation with regards to whether or not the conviction is job related. In determining whether or not the conviction is job related, there are several factors we look at.

Other things that we look at are whether or not there are mitigating circumstances to consider such as someone that went to a rehabilitation program, the length of time that has passed since the conviction, or the age of the applicant at the time of conviction. Each situation is reviewed individually and in terms of the circumstances. We do take into consideration criminal history information that pertains to the applicant as a juvenile or convictions that have been expunged. And I want to conclude that conviction is not an automatic bar to proceed further in a permanent civil service or provisional process. Each situation is reviewed and evaluated on a case by case basis. Finally, in reviewing and evaluating all criminal history records of job applicants, we take into consideration the best interests of the public, the City government, and the department.

The following are questions asked by the Employment Advisory Committee Members:

Jerry Jones asked the following question to Linda Evans:

You mentioned that the box is paramount to racism. Could you explain it to me?

Linda Evans responds:

The City & County of San Francisco, for example, under Federal or State law prohibits discrimination based on race. The vast majority of people going to prison are black or brown, people of color. Discrimination against people coming out of prison ends up being racial discrimination because that’s who goes to prison and who comes out.

Jerry Jones:

But the box on the application form?

Linda Evans:

It is nothing but a cover for racism.

Jerry Jones:

Thank you for clarifying that.

Jerry Jones asked the follow up question to Linda Evans:

The vast majority of people in prison are either Minority or – could you please repeat what you said?

Linda Evans responds:

The vast majority in prison are Black, Latino, and poor.

Jerry Jones:

Are you saying that boxes like this are responsible for that?

Linda Evans:

I don’t think the box specifically is responsible for that. I do think that the fact that people can’t get jobs when they get out of prison makes that community poorer, and poorer, and poorer. And eliminating the box would give us, people coming out of prison much more of a opportunity to actually construct our lives.

Jerry Jones asked the following question to Linda Evans:

In a perfect world, tomorrow if the box was gone, what would happen?

Linda Evans responds:

We would have equal opportunity for employment.

Jerry Jones asked the following question to Elaine Lee:

In your presentation, you talked about what people who had applied for jobs could do if they had filled out this box as "yes". Could you explain that?

Elaine Lee responds:

In my presentation, I was explaining what we look at during our review. When someone has checked "yes" on the box, there are certain things that we do in review of that.

Jerry Jones:

Why do you need the box?

Elaine Lee responds:

Well, for some positions, there are State, and Federal requirements. For the School District, there is the California Education Code that we filed when I worked for the School District. And also there is a liability issue to the City. There are some positions that have requirements like police officers.

Jerry Jones:

So, because of the requirements for some positions, we have the box for all applications.

Elaine Lee:

Yes.

Jerry Jones:

Would it make more sense to have separate applications for those positions than have every application complete the box?

Elaine Lee:

That is something that could be looked at. I can’t make that decision.

Molly Baier asked the following question to Panel Member, Elaine Lee, Human Resources Department:

Is it possible for the Human Resources Department to have a separate group that does the analysis that makes the determination as to whether the conviction is relevant or not, before the person who does the hiring even hears that there was a conviction at all?

Elaine Lee responds:

Well, most of the time when someone is selected for a position, then we have that individual fingerprinted. And then we get the information back.

Molly Baier:

And when you mentioned, "we", is there a particular group in the Human Resources Department that receives the information or does everybody?

Elaine Lee:

No, only certain individuals at the Department of Human Resources receive the information back.

Molly Baier:

Are those individuals who receive the information back the same people who make the hiring decision? Are those the same people who review the other qualifications whether or not an applicant meets all the other requirements of the job?

Elaine Lee:

No, this is a completely separate function.

F. Ross Woodall asked the following question to Elaine Lee:

Does the City of San Francisco have any data that could back up some of the hiring practices whether or not individuals convicted of certain felonies, not related to the job applied for, get hired?

Elaine Lee responds:

I think that information could be gathered. I don’t know the information off the top of my head. I just know from personal experience when I worked as an analyst at the Unified School District, we did hire some people in different positions who have been convicted.

F. Ross Woodall asked the following question to Elaine Lee:

If the proposal by All of Us or None is recommended by the Human Rights Commission Employment Advisory Committee, what type of fiscal cost impact would this proposal have on the City & County of San Francisco?

Elaine Lee responds:

Obviously changing the application, putting in the process, maybe later at another point in time, that this question (have you ever been convicted?) would be asked. In addition, changing policies and procedures & communicating that Citywide to all City departments and ensuring that this is implemented correctly.

F. Ross Woodall asked the following question to Elaine Lee:

If the convictions were evaluated, does the City & County of San Francisco have guidelines for their hiring practice?

Elaine Lee responds:

Based on my experience when I worked for the Department of Human Services, we did have written guidelines as an analyst that I referred to. And we did have a review process. It was not just reviewing the particular situation and making a determination. I would obviously check with my manager and we would check with the hiring department. But I can’t say that written policy exists in all City departments. I don’t know that.

F. Ross Woodall asked the following question to Tiffany Trammell:

Are you personally aware of anyone that has applied for a position with the City & County of San Francisco and has been turned down on the basis of their conviction history?

Tiffany Trammell responds:

No, I don’t have that information. Also, I did not apply for a City position.

Linda Evans responded:

I have an interesting story. One of our members applied for a job that was specifically to do job development for formally incarcerated people. He was out of prison three years, had two more years on parole and he was told that even though he was extremely qualified, he would not be considered for the job until he had not only completed parole but had five years of a clean record after completion of parole. He was told that he was not eligible to apply for that position.

These are the types of problems that come up over and over again. We are confronted with, tell the truth on the application now and get disqualified, or lie on the application and hope that either our criminal record does not come up or that we have proven ourselves over a period of time and manage to get a pay check and enter society because we lied on the application.

One of the main reasons we want to eliminate the box in the first application, is because it is extremely discouraging and it really is a deterrent to keep people from actually applying. The disclosure portion is so comprehensive, it states to list every detail from your entire life, including traffic tickets over twenty dollars from the last ten years. That is an invasion of privacy. It is not job related, and it does not just list job related convictions. We should have specified what convictions are job related or disqualify us for each job category. We propose that, that language be added to the job announcement, so instead of having a comprehensive disclosure requirement, it would say on the job announcement, "don’t apply for this job if you have a conviction for drunk driving in the last five years or whatever restrictions there are."

John Crowley stated to the Panel Members:

I have a building trades background. We don’t have the box. What happens later on, for example, someone gets into our program, becomes a journeyperson, goes out to a jobsite; the box does not appear either because the contractor that employs him does not have the box either. But they do have the box when you go to a facility such as the airport, where they can look up your criminal past and they can bar you from employment on that site. So, it does happen. It happened to one of our members at the airport. With no explanation, of why or how it is even germane to the fact that he is hanging sprinkler pipes. So, it does exist. And try as we might, for our members, I can’t imagine what it is for the public.

John Irwin commented:

Jobs resulted from the three categories: Union, School, and Social Service

Public Comment

The following are in support of the All of Us or None proposal:

Marcus Arana, Keith Butler, Anna Couey, Jane Jackson, James Lockett, Sussanna Majano, Demetria McCain, Dorsey Nunn, Cassie Pierson, Misha Smith, Jon Stingley, Mary Phoebe VanderHorst, Jawanna Victoria

Announcements

Commissioner Faye Woo Lee thanked Kabir Hypolite for doing a good job. Commissioner Lee thanked the Distinguished Panel Members for all the useful information. Commissioner Lee also stated that there would be no votes taken tonight. But at the next Employment Committee meeting on August 4, 2005, this action item will be on the agenda. The Employment Committee Members will make a recommendation to the Human Rights Commission.

Kabir Hypolite thanked the Distinguished Panel Members, Employment Committee Members, and guests for the useful information and for attending this special meeting

Calendar Matters

The next meeting of the Committee will be held:

Date: August 4, 2005

Time: 1:30pm – 3:30pm

Place: 25 Van Ness Avenue – Suite 800

San Francisco, CA 94102

Adjournment

The meeting was adjourned at 8:30 p.m.