Committee debates background‑check policy for county appointments; staff to refine language

Staff presented a proposed administrative policy requested by Council Member Keaton Garrity to require background checks for appointees to boards, committees and certain outside entities appointed by the county. The draft lists disqualifying offenses such as violent crimes, theft, fraud, embezzlement, extortion, bribery, breach of fiduciary duty, formal conflicts of interest and other crimes involving moral turpitude.

Several members urged simpler, clearer language. "I would narrow it down to just say conviction of a misdemeanor or felony," one committee member advised, suggesting that relevance to the position be evaluated rather than relying on an enumerated list. Members also discussed whether checks should be run before or after the public appointment step; most said checks should be completed before a public appointment or at least prior to public announcement so sensitive criminal‑history information is not disclosed broadly.

Staff warned that running background checks before appointment would increase costs for some large applicant pools (one member estimated about $50 per check and roughly $1,500 if tens of applicants are screened). The committee debated scope (which boards should be included), how to handle non‑county sponsor boards (for example the airport sponsor board), and procedures to keep sensitive records private while providing appointing authorities sufficient information to make an informed decision. Staff will revise the draft to clarify scope, timing and the standard for disqualifying offenses.