HAMMONTON DEBATES PROS, CONS OF DOING 'ZERO-TOLERANCE'
BACKGROUND CHECKS

As background checks for volunteer recreation coaches become more and
more common in New Jersey communities, one aspect in particular has
begun to be debated.

Should municipalities disqualify people from coaching because of a
minor marijuana conviction in the past - even if New Jersey law
specifically exempts that one particular crime from being considered
in a background check conducted by New Jersey State Police?

The possiblility of such a "zero-tolerance" policy was discussed at a
recent Hammonton Town Council meeting, with Police Chief Frank Ingemi
and Town Solicitor Brian Howell responding that any background checks
would be proposed as per state law.

"The question is," Howell said at the meeting, "do we want to
establish this policy consistent with state law or not establish the
policy at all?"

Howell later said that the town would investigate what leeway it has
in making its background check policy stronger than state law -
because such a discrepancy, he said, might lead to lawsuits and loopholes.

"We don't want it to be an open invitation for somebody to sue," he
said.

Is it? Not only are background checks handled differently by various
towns, it's also unclear as to why they're handled
differently.

Galloway Township Manager Jill Gougher said that that town's
standards are the same as those laid down by the state.

"The State Police go through the state statutes and certain things
come up in a background check," Gougher said. "There's a whole list
of things flagged, and they're handled on an individual basis."

Under state law, though, a conviction for possession of marijuana
under 50 grams isn't flagged, unlike disorderly persons offenses,
domestic offenses, theft or more severe drug offenses. "(A town)
would never know if a person had a minor pot conviction," said Lt.
John O'Brien, assistant bureau chief with the State Police.

Barnegat Township, in comparison, does have a zero-tolerance policy,
according to recreation director Barbara Levin. She said it was put
in place due to the policies of the Megan Kanka Foundation, which
provides grant funding to allow towns to begin background checks -
although foundation co-founder Maureen Kanka said that wasn't the
case.

"We've never recommended that," Kanka said of a zero-tolerance
policy. "We leave that up to the towns. We (just) require that they
comply with state regulations."

In any event, Levin said that anything that comes up in a background
check, whether a minor drug conviction or something else, is handled
by the township on a case-by-case basis.

"We didn't want to disqualify anyone with a minor offense," Levin
said. "There is a review policy. Say, for example, if you're 45 years
old, and when you were (a teenager) you were caught with a certain
amount of marijuana. You can appeal that to the appeals committee,
and if you haven't done anything since then, it's up to them to let
it slide."

She said that the background checks have worked out well since they
were instituted.

"As to whether they're a deterrent or not, I don't know," Levin said.
As for whether any applicant's background has ever caused a problem,
"we haven't had to deal with it, let's put it that way."

But if minor drug convictions aren't flagged, how would towns like
Barnegat with zero-tolerance policies ever know about them in the
first place? It turns out that, like many aspects of New Jersey law,
the statutes are more Byzantine than one would expect.

O'Brien explained that there are actually two ways a town or
nonprofit organization can handle background checks. The Volunteer
Review Operation, or VRO, of the State Police, which processes the
requests, works under the section of the law that excludes minor
marijuana or hashish possession as a disqualifier. The VRO performs
the criminal checks by running an applicant's fingerprints through
FBI and state records. The results are reviewed by lawyers and
returned to either the municipality or directly to the applicant
along with the VRO's recommendation.

If, however, a town or non-profit preferred a zero-tolerance policy,
its background checks would fall under a different section of the law
in the New Jersey Administrative Code. The town would learn about
minor drug convictions, but there would be two major differences -
only state records would be searched, not the federal database, and
the results would be sent directly to the town or nonprofit without
any lawyer review.

"They'd be receiving the criminal histories back," said O'Brien, "and
they'd (better) have some level of expertise to know what they're
looking at. It would behoove any group interested in going that route
to attain some level of competency, or maybe assistance from local
law enforcement or an attorney."

As O'Brien said about a hypothetical shoplifting conviction - a
flagged offense in all circumstances, unlike minor drug offenses - an
agency could always decide on an individual basis that an offense
"was so long ago, it doesn't matter."

Whether it would be worth the trouble just to find out about minor
marijuana possession - whether long ago, or more recently - is a call
that Hammonton and other towns considering criminal checks for
coaches still have to make.