Augusta workshop advances proposal to expand "ban-the-box" protections, but oversight and appeal questions remain

Augusta City held a public work session on May 1 to review proposed amendments to its existing "ban-the-box" policy, including language that would add criminal-history status to the city's nondiscrimination rules and require individualized assessments by the Human Resources Department when criminal records appear during hiring.

The workshop's moderator presented draft language that would require HR to "make an individual assessment of the relevance of the criminal record to the duties and responsibilities of the position" and said the draft also gives the director of human resources the final decision on whether a negative criminal history disqualifies a selected candidate. The draft would require written notice within 30 days to any candidate excluded for criminal-history reasons and provide a copy of the criminal inquiry showing the convictions cited.

Advocates framed the proposed ordinance as an economic and public-safety measure. Morgan Boyd, CSRA regional manager with Bard Business, said the policy would help people return to work. "A working community is a safe community," Boyd said, adding that Augusta has high numbers of residents who are justice-impacted and faces barriers to reentry. Hilton Sampey, a barber who described himself as justice-impacted, told the workshop the change could provide tangible opportunities for people who have completed their sentences.

Officials and other participants focused on how the policy would be implemented and reviewed several possible appeal and oversight models. Commissioner Johnson said the city should "create options or a space for options" so candidates who are not right for a specific position might be placed in other, non–safety-sensitive roles. Several attendees warned that vesting final hiring authority in a single HR director is a heavy burden and suggested either using the personnel board or a human relations commission for oversight of complaints rather than an external body that would see applicants' records.

Speakers raised three recurring concerns: confidentiality, the risk of litigation, and the need for objective criteria. Multiple participants urged a documented matrix or rubric that would weigh the nature of the offense, the time since conviction and evidence of rehabilitation against job duties; that rubric, they said, would both guide individualized assessments and help the city defend decisions if challenged. One participant warned that an outside commission reviewing applicant files could reintroduce public disclosure or bias; another recommended handling sensitive reviews within an internal committee with independent members.

Workshop participants also discussed the legal reach of adding criminal-history status as a protected class. One attendee noted that adding protected status would shift the issue into a civil-rights framework, with broader implications for enforcement and city obligations. Advocates pointed to similar measures in Atlanta and other jurisdictions as templates members of the working group could consult.

The session closed with a clear procedural next step: HR and the city's legal team will draft implementation recommendations (including proposed rubrics, confidentiality protections and appeal procedures) and return to the work group for a follow-up meeting. The moderator asked attendees to sign in to receive public notices; the next work session will be publicly posted when scheduled.

There were no formal votes during the session.