I'm a little confused by section 4.B.2 regarding when existing employees "must" submit to a background check - how often "must" those referenced submit to a background check? Sections 2.c ("faculty paid by SLCC) and 2.d ("concurrent enrollment instructors") are the most unclear to me.

under this section it sounds like number 2. statement contradict number 1. need to be clarify.
E. Processing Time of Background Checks

1. Background checks shall be completed before PWC authorizes a candidate to begin working.

2. If the college must bring a selected candidate on board immediately, the employment offer shall note that a background check is in process and that the offer and continued employment shall be contingent on the background check results.

RE: "Existing employees and volunteers must report any criminal convictions or criminal charges filed against them" Due to the fact they are innocent until proven guilty I see no reason why an employee must disclose charges prior to conviction that could adversely affect their employment. Seems like that could cause undue hardship on the employee through pre-judicial action by the college, opening up the college to lawsuits.

I also don't understand what the ultimate value of blanket background checks every three years is. Will it actually decrease risk to the college? Background checks are going to be wasteful use of resources and should only be used in targeted circumstances. his seems to also go against the spirit of other policies in Utah such as the "fresh start" laws.

Under 4.B.2. it doesn't seem like administration is captured in any of the categories of existing employees. Must existing administrators submit to background checks? I would argue that all college employees should fit into this category.

Under 4.B.2. it seems like all faculty must submit to background checks but only staff that apply to a new position without a current background check. Is this correct? Why the difference?

F3: by calling out a social security number and counties of employment, we preclude international hiring. Someone currently living in another country may not have a social security number, and they can't obtain one on a work visa unless they have a job offer in hand. Even then, applying for a SS# requires the paperwork for the work visa to be complete, both of which can take several weeks and significantly delay the hiring timeline, which can also cause a top candidate to reject an offer. Our current contracted background check company, Precise Check, already provides a global background check service. We should build into this policy the ability to use this to fulfill the requirement for employment.

What happens if we hire a High School kid under the age of 18? I believe a person needs to be of legal age 18, in order to have a background check submitted. I'm sure your aware. Brought it up in case you werent

I am curious what the reason is for repeated background checks every 3 years for continuing employees.

1. Policy Statement
   1. Rename the policy to “Criminal Background Checks” policy.
   2. In the policy statement, change from “background check” to “criminal background check.”
2. Definitions
   1. Why do we have seven definitions embedded in the policy and then a reference to personnel definitions link? This committee prefers that policy definitions be embedded in the policy and not linked into the policy. The reason for this preference is: 1) there are too many definitions in the personnel definitions document and they can be difficult to find; 2) the definitions should have to go through the policy review process; and 3) often the links don’t work.
   2. In definitions 3.B and 3.E change from “background check” to “criminal background check.”
3. Procedure
   1. Required Background Checks
      1. A practical concern is that the hiring of adjunct faculty can be overwhelming. To add a requirement that adjunct faculty must be hired through a background check will only make the process more overwhelming. As it is, SLCC’s hiring process is too cumbersome and slow, this will make it worse.
      2. Section 4.A.1 requires background checks for all part-time positions. Adjunct faculty are part-time positions. Utah Code §53B-1-110(3)(b) does not require that background checks be conducted for adjunct faculty positions. Why are we requiring adjunct faculty to undergo a background check?
   2. Background Checks for Existing Employees
      1. Section 4.B.1 requires background checks to be conducted every three years. Would it make sense to require background checks every five years instead of every three years? Utah Code §53B-1-110 appears to be silent on how frequently these background checks must be completed.
      2. Section 4.B.2 requires that an existing employee submit to a background check. What happens if an existing employee refuses to submit to a background check?
      3. Section 4.B.2-Can an employee who refuses to consent to a background check be suspended from their employment or receive corrective action?
      4. Section 4.B.4 states that a president’s “designee” may require that an employee must submit to a background check. Who is the president’s designee? Must the president specifically designate that person to order the background check? Consider replacing “president” with “Associate Vice President for People and Workplace Culture.”
   3. Criminal Convictions
      1. Consider revising section 4.C as follows: “Existing employees and volunteers must report criminal convictions, arrests, or criminal charges in any form initiated by any governmental authority. This report must be provided to their Supervisor and Employee Relations within five business days.” The reason for this proposed change is that there are many different ways, under the law, that criminal charges may be initiated against a person. Charges are not always “filed.” (i.e. citation in lieu of arrest, regulatory offenses)
      2. Consider revising section 4.C as follows: “Existing employees and volunteers must report criminal convictions, arrests, or criminal charges in any form initiated by any governmental authority. This report must be provided to their Supervisor and Employee Relations within five business days.” The reason for this proposed change is that there are many different ways, under the law, that criminal charges may be initiated against a person. Charges are not always “filed.” (i.e. citation in lieu of arrest, regulatory offenses)
4. Release of Information
   1. For existing employees, will a consent form for a background check be required each time an employee has a background check, or will the consent be in perpetuity?
   2. Consider adding the consent form as a link.
   3. Are current existing employees consenting to background checks during their employment or is this a new process?
5. Processing Time of Background Checks
   1. In academic departments, hiring faculty can be an involved and long process. It would be a shame and waste of time if the department conducts its hiring process and recommends a candidate who does not pass the background check. Can a background check be done earlier in the hiring process rather than later in the process?
   2. How long does it take to complete a background check?
6. Third-party Agency Background Checks
   1. Add a section which states that the college must provide the applicant or employee written notice that a background check has been requested. Utah Code §53B-1-110(4) has this written notice requirement.
   2. Section 4.F.2 is confusing. It seems to state that a third-party agency can conduct a fingerprint background check when needed. Utah Code §53B-1-110(5)(b) only allows the Utah Bureau of Criminal Investigation and Federal Bureau of Investigation to conduct a fingerprint background check. This needs to be clarified.
   3. Section 4.F.3 seeks information beyond the scope of what the statute requires. Rather than focusing on just a criminal background check, it states that the check is to “verify ... social security number [and]obtain information regarding past employment.” In addition, the beginning of the section states "at a minimum." This language goes far beyond the scope of what is required by Utah Code §53B-1-110 and constitutes an invasion of the employee or prospective employee’s privacy.
   4. Utah Code §53B-1-110(5) does not require that the college conduct a fingerprint background check. It states, “if required by the institution.” Consider deleting section 4.F.2.
7. Payment of Costs
   1. Section 4.G.1 and 4.G.2 are somewhat contradictory. 4.G.1 states “the college shall pay the cost” while 4.G.2 creates a possible exception. Consider changing 4.G.1 as follows: “Typically, the college will pay the cost to the bureau or agencies for processing candidates’, employees’ and volunteers’ background checks.”
   2. In section 4.G.2, it states that sometimes the employee may have to pay for the criminal background check. In the case of a part-time or adjunct employee who makes $3,000 or $4,000 per semester, having to pay for the background check would constitute a disincentive for someone to work at the college in this tight labor market.
   3. In section 4.G.2, under what circumstances would the employee have to pay for a background check?
   4. In section 4.G.2 consider changing “president” to “Associate Vice President for People and Workplace Culture or designee.” Typically, the president will not be involved in this decision.
8. Risk Assessment
   1. In section 4.H.1, the factors listed are good.
   2. In section 4.H.2, change “employment team” to “hiring manager or supervisor”
   3. In section 4.H.2 reword this section to state: “In conducting the risk assessment, PWC’s hiring representative will consult with the hiring manager to determine whether the candidate constitutes an acceptable or unacceptable risk using the factors set forth in section 4.H.1.
   4. In section 4.H.3 change “determination” to “risk determination.”
   5. Revise section 4.H.4 to state: “The supervisor, in consultation with Employee Relations, will determine whether an existing employee, whose criminal background check, revealed a criminal history should be eligible to obtain or retain the position. In such circumstances, Employee Relations may seek additional documentation, using the reasonable cause standard, in order to assess the existing employee’s risk to the college. “It is assumed that this section addresses an “existing employee” only and not a “new employee.”
9. Opportunity to Respond
   1. Revise Section 4.I.2 to state: “The candidate or employee shall be able to respond to PWC, the hiring manager and/or supervisor to the pre-adverse notification and any information received due to the background check.
   2. Add Section 4.I.4 which states: “An existing employee, who is subjected to adverse action, due to the Criminal Background Check, may be entitled to a hearing under the Employee Grievance Policy or Academic Freedom, Professional Responsibility and Tenure policy, whichever is applicable.
   3. Consider reorganizing this section into subsections dealing with Employment Candidates and Existing Employee rights.
10. Verification of Statements
    1. In section 4.J.2, replace “cause the truth” with “evaluate the truthfulness”.
    2. In section 4.J.3 replaced “falsified” with “intentionally falsified or not disclosed.” The word “intentional” has been added because an employee or candidate who has a Class C misdemeanor conviction for walking a dog without a leash may not consciously think the conviction needs to be disclosed.
11. Record Keeping
    1. In section 4.K.1 reword this section to state: “Documentation associated with background checks will be kept secure, confidential, and protected. Only employees with a legitimate business purpose to know of the background checks’ contents shall have access to the information.

Regarding the section that reads "Existing full-time and part-time employees may undergo background checks every three years during employment", there are a couple of points that stand out to me:

1. Clarity and Specificity: The word "may" seems a bit vague. It doesn't give us a clear idea of when these checks should happen, which might lead to the policy being applied in a hit-or-miss fashion. This could inadvertently create issues of fairness and potentially even discrimination. I think it would be beneficial if we could define some specific criteria for these background checks.

2. Avoiding Bias: Without straightforward guidelines, there's a risk that this policy might be applied in a way that could be seen as biased, whether we intend it or not. We need to make sure our approach is crystal clear and impartial. Ensuring that this policy is applied consistently to everyone is crucial. This helps avoid any perception of unfair treatment.

Under G2 ("There may be a time when the president or their designee may require candidates to pay the costs of a background check as a condition of employment."), I think it would be helpful to specify under what circumstances the president or their designee could require candidates to pay for their background check.

Under H4, "criminal history" is vague. I would replace "with a criminal history" with "with one or more criminal convictions."