County commission backs background checks for personnel with unrestricted 911-center access

The County Commission on Aug. 6 authorized the commission president to send a letter supporting background checks for employees and contractors who have unrestricted access to the county 911 center. Commissioners also acknowledged a separate request to remove three commissioners—' key-card access to the facility.

The measure grew from a request by the 911 advisory board to require background checks for any person with unfettered access to the center, such as custodians and IT staff. "We did to have a letter of support for the background checks for all employees that enter the center," said an advisory-board representative during the meeting. The commission president said the board—'s request was "a step that we should be doing anyway" and moved to authorize a support letter.

Commissioners discussed limits on who should have permanent access. One commissioner noted that some elected officials and commissioners had access historically and questioned whether removing access could hinder officials who occasionally need the facility. At the meeting a speaker who identified themself as Omar said he had been asked to remove three commissioners from the 911 access list; those affected signaled they were willing to forgo access rather than undergo background checks. "I don't want a background check because I don't want people to know my background," one commissioner said.

The commission president clarified that the support letter would be a general endorsement of the concept and not a regulatory change; the advisory board will receive the commission—'s support so the board can pursue a background-check policy. A motion to permit the president to write the letter and transmit support to the advisory board passed by voice vote.

Why it matters: The 911 center is a controlled facility that houses sensitive operations. Agencies and local boards often require vetting for staff with unsupervised physical access. The commission's support gives the advisory board an explicit local-government endorsement as it considers instituting checks for personnel with unfettered access.

What happened next: Commissioners instructed staff to send the letter and to follow the advisory board—'s process; no ordinance, policy change or employment action was adopted at the meeting.