Winchester committee debates keeping criminal-history question on boards-and-commissions application

A Winchester City committee discussed whether to keep a criminal-history question on applications for city boards and commissions and asked staff to draft a narrowly tailored policy.

Melissa, identified in the meeting as the presenter, told the committee that "asking a criminal conviction question on applications is not per se illegal" but warned it can lead to discriminatory outcomes if used without individualized assessments. She cited EEOC guidance and Virginia law constraints as reasons to be cautious and urged the committee to narrow any question to boards where convictions are directly relevant, such as parks and recreation or social services panels that work with children or vulnerable residents.

Members and Melissa explored how the city could obtain and vet information. Melissa said applicants can obtain their own criminal-history records but the city "cannot ask WPD" to run a person's criminal history for the committee, calling that practice "a big no no" and noting limitations set by state law. She also pointed to the sex-offender registry as a separate searchable resource that may be pertinent for specific roles.

The discussion emphasized individualized review rather than automatic exclusion. Melissa recommended avoiding questions about arrests, focusing on convictions, and setting a clear procedure: if an applicant answers "yes," staff would follow up with an interview, evaluate the severity and timing of the offense and its relevance to the board's duties, and then advise the committee. As an example of role relevance she said a recent felony tied to financial misconduct would be more disqualifying for a finance role than a distant DUI for a planning commission appointment.

Miss Sloan told the committee she initially opposed the question but changed her view after constituents raised safety concerns: "I really think it should stay on here, maybe in a different context like you said." Members balanced the desire to protect the public with concerns about screening out people who have rehabilitated.

Votes at a glance: approved actions from the meeting - Minutes: Motion to approve prior minutes passed by voice vote (moved by Chair Fox; seconded). - Executive session: Motion to recess to a closed meeting under Code §2.2-3711(A)(1) to discuss appointments was moved and approved by voice vote. - Reconvene and FOIA certification: The committee reconvened and certified compliance with the Virginia Freedom of Information Act. - Adjournment: Motion to adjourn passed by voice vote.

Next steps: Members asked Melissa to draft policy language and an interview procedure that would narrowly tailor conviction questions to specific boards and explain how the information will be used. The committee recessed to a closed meeting for appointments, later reconvened, certified the closed meeting under FOIA and adjourned.