Palatka charter review committee agrees to rely on supervisor of elections for candidate background checks

The City of Palatka Charter Review Committee voted to align its candidate-qualification process with the Supervisor of Elections and the state’s background-check procedures, concluding the committee will rely on the information the supervisor sends to the state when determining whether a candidate is qualified.

Committee members debated whether the city should require an additional, locally administered database or screening process and reviewed a sample agreement used by the Supervisor of Elections to reserve polling space at the Price Martin Center.

Committee members said there is no comprehensive, public database that lists all felony convictions for local use today. A pending state-level bill to create a publicly searchable database for convicted felons was mentioned during the meeting, but committee members were told the proposed database would not be available for many years and therefore is not an immediate option for local screening. Committee members discussed private background-search services, state registries used for sex-offender registration and corrections records, and federal law enforcement systems as partial sources of information.

After discussion, a member moved that the committee “align ourselves with what the supervisor of election actually does and accept the report that the state gives him back whether a person is qualified or not.” A second was made, the motion was called to a vote, and the motion carried with a majority voting in favor and one opposed.

Committee members asked staff to circulate the sample Supervisor of Elections agreement (the form used to authorize use of city facilities as polling locations) and to include any related contract language in the committee’s upcoming agenda packet for review.

The committee also asked to receive information from law enforcement or human-resources staff at a future meeting about difference between common background-screening clearances (for example, “level 2” fingerprint-based clearances for youth volunteers) to clarify what checks are feasible for employees versus volunteers or candidates. Counsel was asked to draft potential charter language options if the committee chooses to recommend additional requirements in the future.

Background and next steps: The committee recorded the discussion for inclusion in the charter-review record and agreed to accept as the baseline the Supervisor of Elections’ practice and the state’s background-check determinations unless the committee later proposes a specific, legally vetted local alternative.