Augusta work session hears weeks of testimony on strengthening 'ban the box' and second‑chance protections

Augusta Richmond County commissioners on May 14 convened a work session to gather public input on strengthening the county’s existing "ban the box" hiring practice and on whether to classify justice‑impacted people as a protected class under local law.

Chairman Jordan Johnson, who represents Augusta’s first district, opened the session by saying the current policy removes conviction questions from initial applications but still permits background checks later in hiring. "Ban the box is in place," he said, "but a conviction can still ultimately disqualify a person after they’ve gone through the process." Johnson asked the county’s human resources department to provide hiring data and said commissioners will review a draft ordinance line‑by‑line at a future work session before sending it to the Administrative Services Committee.

Speakers during a multi‑hour public‑comment period told personal stories about employment barriers after incarceration and urged concrete policy changes. "Punishment should not last forever," Jackie Rose, an advocate and daughter of two justice‑impacted parents, said. She and other speakers asked for policies that create lasting opportunity rather than merely offering an occasional "chance."

Advocates described two policy levers in particular: an individualized‑assessment process that evaluates an applicant’s conviction in light of the nature of the offense, time elapsed and evidence of rehabilitation, and stronger enforcement mechanisms that give complaints meaningful remedies. A policy director from Voice of the Experience outlined an assessment model intended to limit employer reliance on an applicant’s record when there is no nexus between the offense and the job, and urged that a human‑relations office be given authority to investigate discrimination complaints or that a private right to sue be preserved.

Several witnesses also framed the issue as an economic question. One presenter said that hiring people returning from incarceration could raise local payrolls and tax revenue while reducing corrections costs; he illustrated the point with hypothetical figures (for example, hiring 10,000 people at $35,000 would inject $350 million into the local economy), and said the community consequences extend to crime reduction and family stability.

Speakers with direct reentry experience described specific obstacles: fees required by parole offices, employers that rescind offers after background checks, licensing boards that deny occupational credentials, and prison labor arrangements in which incarcerated workers are paid low wages while community jobs go to nonlocal labor. "They took discrimination off the front end and put it on the back end," one presenter said of ban‑the‑box practices.

Commissioners — including Francine Scott and Tony Lewis — thanked speakers and pledged to move deliberately. Scott said commissioners will hold additional working sessions and smaller meetings to refine language. Johnson said the draft ordinance will be reviewed in committee before any vote; he repeatedly emphasized that no final decision was made at the May 14 session.

What happens next: staff will provide hiring and HR data requested by the commission, a draft ordinance will be distributed and discussed at a future workshop, and the measure is expected to go to the Administrative Services Committee before a full commission vote. The commission did not take a formal vote at the session.

Key takeaways for policymakers: public commenters favored an individualized‑assessment model combined with clear enforcement (mandatory investigations or enforcement authority for a human‑relations office); commenters also urged attention to licensing and housing rules that can re‑exclude returning residents. Commissioners signaled support for further work and follow‑up but did not adopt any ordinance at the meeting.