Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Human Resources topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
HR recommends switching background‑check vendor to Verified First for faster, more comprehensive checks
Summary
Human Resources recommended Verified First as a replacement vendor because it offers federal-level checks, an up‑to‑date sex‑offender registry and integration with the city's applicant tracking system at a lower net price than the existing vendor once required additions are included.
Abby Newell, human-resources generalist, and Heather Buchanan, HR director, briefed the council on problems with the city’s current background‑check vendor and recommended moving to Verified First, which integrates with the city’s applicant‑tracking platform and offers a more comprehensive package for a similar per‑check price.
Newell said the current vendor’s package omits federal‑level checks unless the city pays extra and relies on a sex‑offender database that is not updated in real time. She described cases where county records showed dismissals or federal escalations that the vendor’s report did not reflect, and she described an instance in which a record was reportedly missed because of a name typo.
Newell summarized vendor pricing and recommended Verified First after negotiations reduced that vendor’s quote. “For the exact same package plus federal, we would actually only be paying $27.70 per check,” she said, describing a package that would include federal searches, an offender‑registry search rather than an annual database snapshot, and integration with the city’s Caldera applicant‑tracking system. Checkr and other vendors were evaluated but were priced higher in the city’s review.
Council members asked about what disqualifies candidates, who makes the final hiring decision, whether pending charges appear on reports and contract terms; Newell said HR reviews checks and consults legal as needed, but hiring managers make final hiring decisions. Newell said the new vendor would be pay‑per‑check with no long-term lock‑in; the HR team said it would provide an MOU for review and recommended an initial trial.
Council directed staff to proceed with further vetting and legal review of the MOU and to return a contract or agreement for formal council consideration.
