Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Background Checks topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Bloomfield committee tables proposal to require background checks for volunteers
Summary
After a lengthy debate over fairness, cost and scope, the Committee on Committees removed the proposed background-check requirement (section 4.2) from the current SOP and agreed to revisit the issue later; members asked staff to provide options and cost estimates before reinstating any requirement.
The Committee on Committees in Bloomfield debated whether to require background checks for people appointed to town boards and commissions and ultimately chose to remove the proposed requirement from the current SOP and table the issue for later, more detailed consideration.
Councilor DeBethan Brown said a background check is important but suggested tabling the requirement until it could be applied consistently across all volunteer bodies. "I do believe that a background check is extremely important... until we can get that as a standard operating procedure across the board, I think that we should probably table that portion of this for right now," she said.
Town Manager Schwab cautioned that requiring checks could be subjective if eligibility to serve is already tied to voter registration. "If someone's eligible to vote, it seems like it'd be very subjective to then turn around and say that someone is not qualified to serve on a board," Schwab said, urging the committee to define what a background check would actually screen for before adopting a requirement.
Members also discussed cost. One councilor said checks can run "anywhere between $30 and $75 per" person, while Chair Goodwin noted bulk pricing options offered by private vendors; Goodwin referenced a vendor named Presidium and said bulk pricing could be as low as $10 per check depending on volume. Councilors raised concerns about types of checks (criminal, credit, litigation flags) and whether they should apply differently for quasi‑judicial or ethics appointments.
To avoid delaying broader SOP adoption, Chair Goodwin said the committee would remove section 4.2 (the background-check language) from the version of the SOP considered tonight and untable discussions of background checks and the addendum at a later date, when staff can present clearer options, thresholds and estimated costs. India Rogers and other staff were asked to provide workflow documentation and, when available, a recommended timeline for reconsideration.
The committee did not adopt a townwide background-check policy at this meeting; members asked staff to return with refined language and cost information for a future meeting.
