In June 2005 Georgia Tech, under the direction of Jean Fuller and myself (reporting to Jean as the new background check program manager) formalized campus-wide
background check policy through its first written version named, at the time, “8.1
Employment Background Checks.”201 Creating this new policy was a challenge for Jean and
I, because very few higher education institutions had a formal policy. Jean describes her recollection,
200 Dr. Jean Fuller, interview by author, 28 September 2011.
201 Dr. Fuller appointed me in this role mainly because whenever there was a question about a criminal history report the information was brought to me (due to my previous experience working as a police officer for two years in Michigan).
you know it’s been awhile. It’s been gosh about eight or nine years, but I was trying to remember, I am thinking that we had problems finding other programs within the university system. We were probably one of the first to implement a full-blown program.202
This first written version of Policy 8.1 was comprised of three major headings including “Purpose,” “Procedure,” and “Positions Requiring Background Checks.”203
(1) The “Purpose” heading consisted of two paragraphs articulating, “Background checks will be conducted on applicants and current employees being considered for promotion, reclassification, or transfer” and that these background checks “must be completed prior to any offer of employment.” The Purpose Statement also communicated that Georgia Tech would be contracting the sensitive data collection and reporting process to a third-party vendor referred to as “The Background Check Agency.”204
(2) The “Procedure” heading consisted of six sub-headings including (I) Types of Background Checks; (II) Position Advertisements and Offers of Employment; (III)
Approval to Conduct Background Checks; (IV) Results of Background Checks; (V) Adverse Action; and (VI) Records Retention.
I. “Types of Background Checks” specified that The Office of Human Resources was responsible for maintaining a list of Georgia Tech employment positions requiring background checks. These were “positions that have access to grand master keys, money, security-sensitive areas, and confidential information; positions that have the capability to
202 Dr. Jean Fuller, interview by author, 28 September 2011.
203 Georgia Tech Policy 8.1, document in author’s possession and available upon request, all subsequent quotations under heading “Policy 8.1 June 2005 Version” refer to this document unless otherwise noted.
204 At this time I conducted all the research and provided reports to Dr. Fuller on an appropriate third-party company to collect and report all of our background check information. We selected InfoMart Inc. of Atlanta.
create, delete, or alter Institute records; and any position which is considered a position of trust.”
II. “Position Advertisements and Offers of Employment” stated that applicants were to be made aware of the requirement for a background check “at the earliest possible stage in the hiring process.” If a position required a background check, it was to be
communicated to all applicants in the position advertisement and no offer of employment could be extended until successful passing of the background check.
III. “Approval to Conduct Background Checks” explained that campus hiring departments must specifically request a background check using the designated approval forms and the “total cost of each background check will be charged to the hiring
department.” Responsibility for initiation of and payment for background checks rested on the hiring department; however, the Office of Human Resources ensured that employment applicants provided appropriate consent for a background check as required by the Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA). Finally, sub-heading III stated, “If a candidate/employee refuses to sign the Disclosure and Consent Form, no further consideration will be given to that candidate/employee.”
IV. “Results of Background Check” outlined the procedure for administering decisions regarding background check results in a manner conducive with ensuring “the decision is fair and legal based on all information.” At this time the USG did not have a policy specifically devoted to background checks; however, the USG Business Procedures Manual, at the time, did state that convicted felons were not permitted to work for the university system. This first version of Policy 8.1 aligned with the USG Manuel stating that “a record of a felony conviction will result in immediate disqualification for and/or
circumstance that warranted immediate disqualification for and/or termination of
employment. Records that contained convictions of non-felony offenses were reviewed by the Human Resources Manager of the Background Check Procedure.205 The decision
process at this time for non-felony convictions was governed by the tenet that “records that include information which may indicate a risk to Georgia Tech students, employees, and/or property will result in disqualification for and/or termination of employment.”206
V. “Adverse Action” described the procedure for communicating a disqualification of employment. This responsibility resided with the Background Check Agency and included use of formal letters that included “rationale for the decision as well as contact information for the Background Check Agency.” The Background Check Agency assisted any applicants with any requests “pertaining to the record in compliance with the FCRA.” If an applicant was a current employee “and the background check reveals adverse information which constitutes grounds for termination, the Office of Human Resources will initiate the appropriate termination procedure.”207 This resulted in several employment terminations
after the policy was initiated, as Jean recalls,
and one of the things that you know we found out, and it was unfortunate, were internal employees applying for promotion. We didn’t have background checks you know, say five or six years prior to when they were first hired, but when they applied for a promotion or were selected as a candidate, we had background checks in place…. I have actually had to have a department fire an employee because they lied
205 At the time this was my responsibility when I worked in the Georgia Tech Office of Human Resources.
206 This resulted in many meetings with OHR senior management in order to discuss criminal records and the implications associated with hiring individuals with non-felony convictions.
207 I recall specifically that the first 18 months of the new policy produced a lot of tension for applicants already employed on campus who had criminal histories. Policy 8.1 not only served as a preventative method for screening outside applicants, but also as a tool for identifying current employees with criminal histories (that were not revealed before Policy 8.1).
on their application which was unfortunate and they had been an excellent employee while they were at Georgia Tech.208
VI. “Records Retention” stated that the Office of Human Resources was responsible for serving “as the custodian of records for background check results.”
(3) The final July, 2005 heading of Policy 8.1 was “Positions Requiring Background Checks.” This heading consisted of four subheadings.
I. “Any position (at any level) which is considered a ‘position of trust.’” Position of trust is further defined as any job assignment “that requires the discretionary managing of money, sensitive material/equipment, or children.”
II. “All senior and executive level management positions (including Asst. and Assoc. levels).” Examples provided for positions of this kind were Deans, Vice Presidents, and Directors.
III. “Any position (at any level) which has access to Institute financial and/or sensitive information records/databases.” After this subheading was a list of seventy eight positions that were determined to fit in this category. Examples included Accountant, Financial Manager, and Human Resources Manager.
IV. “All safety sensitive positions (at any level).” These include “positions requiring routine high risk work where there is potential for significant risk to others.” After this subheading was a list of 12 positions that were determined to fit in the routine high risk category (most of which were either in the police department or security related). Also, “positions charged with direct medical care, treatment, and/or counseling of students and/or access to controlled substances.” The complete list of medical related positions was a total of twenty two jobs including Chief Medical Technologist, Nurse, Staff Physician, and
Pharmacist. Finally, “any position requiring possession/use of campus keys, the operation of heavy machinery, dangerous equipment, and/or use of a state owned vehicle.” Eighty four positions were determined to fit within this category, including Custodial Manager, Locksmith Foreman, and Maintenance Construction Worker.
Policy 8.1 June, 2005 Evolution Highlights
The inception version of Policy 8.1 in June, 2005 was a turning point in the campus employment recruitment culture. After June, 2005 the Office of Human Resources could refer to a specific policy for background check administration. The campus gradually accepted the increased liability associated with obtaining very sensitive background check data and the additional costs associated with using a third-party vendor. The fact that no employment offer could be extended until completion of a background check added an additional level of bureaucracy to the hiring process. The creation of Policy 8.1 also increased Georgia Tech’s attention to the associated (no exceptions at the time) USG employment policy that did not allow the hiring of any applicant with a felony conviction.