Boards and Commissions Committee adopts revised criminal-history question, adds honesty clause

The Winchester City Boards and Commissions Committee voted on Monday to adopt an update to the application question about criminal history and a related policy that directs an individualized assessment of any disclosed offenses, the committee heard.

Melissa Michaelson, the presenter for the item, said she revised the application question and drafted a policy to ensure criminal history is considered as "one of the many factors in selecting the best outcome," not as an automatic disqualification. "We were going to be looking at, an applicant's criminal history or criminal background subject to an individualized assessment," Michaelson said, adding the policy would weigh factors such as "the nature and severity of the offense, the length of time that has passed" and evidence of rehabilitation.

Committee members pressed for clarity about whether listing convictions might discourage community members from applying. "Sometimes it just makes them feel like, hey, why do I have to explain something that happened 10 years ago," a committee member said, arguing the wording could deter participation. Michaelson and other members responded that publicity and outreach, plus the added disclaimer, should help reassure potential applicants that past convictions will not automatically bar them from service.

The committee also discussed board-by-board relevance, noting that offenses tied to children or to financial responsibilities may be more pertinent for certain appointments such as youth-related boards, parks and recreation or finance committees. Michaelson urged that those distinctions be handled through the proposed individualized review rather than by removing the question altogether.

On a motion by Councilor Mitchem to "adopt the update to the criminal history application question and the related policy in addition to a statement that requires the individual to be honest on their application," with a second, the committee approved the language by voice vote. The committee recorded ayes and no oppositions in the meeting transcript; the motion was adopted.

After the vote, the committee recessed into a closed meeting to discuss appointments of specific public officers and appointees as authorized under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act and the statutory authorization for closed sessions regarding appointments to boards and commissions (Virginia Code §2.2-3711(A)(1)). The committee later reconvened and certified that only those exempted matters were discussed, then adjourned.

The adopted change adds a redlined disclaimer to the application making clear that a conviction "will not automatically disqualify" an applicant and that any findings of dishonesty on the application may subject an appointee to removal by the Boards and Commissions Committee.