How Do You Manage? Case Study: Past Perfect?

Ray Catapano, director of the Crispin Branch of the Sherman County Library System, called the meeting to order. "All right, everyone, get your coffee and settle in. I received a letter two days ago from the county commissioners, and I want to share it with you. The county is going to institute criminal background checks for all employees, which will immediately apply to all new hires during the interview stage."

"Why?" Joe Intelisano asked.

"It seems there have been a number of petty crimes committed in various departments, including in some of our other libraries, and a few questionable hires, and this is a precautionary measure," Catapano responded. "Other counties and even whole states are doing it."

"Not a terrible idea then," children's librarian Mabel Harvey offered.

"But it's just for those working with children, right?" asked support staffer Mimi Feinsod.

"Not necessarily," Catapano answered. "It's primarily to protect children, but the county is also worried about protecting other staff and property. You all know that a staffer in another branch, whom I won't name, recently was fired for stealing. Turns out it wasn't the first time. The person had lost other jobs for the same reason."

"So what are you saying here, that everyone has to go through this before getting hired?" Intelisano asked.

Catapano was silent a moment. "It would be all new hires, but also," he cleared his throat, "the county commissioners are considering doing background checks on current employees as well."

"That's a bit much, isn't it?" Feinsod said.

"Not necessarily, Mimi," Harvey answered. "We all know that the person caught stealing was a veteran employee, not a newbie. So maybe it's not such a bad idea. Books, CDs, DVDs do go missing all the time. We naturally blame the patrons, but how do we know it's them?"

"Come on, Mabel, a few missing items isn't a crime spree and no reason to invade people's privacy," Intelisano said, rolling his eyes.

"Got something to hide, Joe?" Feinsod laughed.

"What if someone got busted for dope in college and technically has a police record? The commissioners could say they don't want dope fiends working for them and fire the person. You don't know what kind of free hand this will give them."

"Oh, so you were busted for pot, huh. Have any now? I could use some for this meeting," Feinsod said, drawing laughs.

"If the county wanted criminal background checks on patrons before we issued them library cards, everyone would be dead set against it. Why shouldn't we protect our own privacy just as adamantly?" Intelisano huffed.

"Let's rein it in people," Catapano said loudly. Everyone quieted down. "The commissioners are leaving it up to the discretion of the managers—that would be me—to decide whether to do the background checks on just new hires or the whole staff. I wanted to include you all in the decision and go with a majority opinion. Some people are against and some for, but I want everyone's input.

"You don't have to answer now," Catapano reassured the staff. "Take some time and think about it. But here's what I want you to consider: Are criminal background checks good or bad and should they be only for new hires or for everyone on staff?"

By asking for a "majority" on the merits of criminal background checks for current and prospective employees, Catapano has misused the concept of participative management and, in effect, abdicated his managerial responsibility for decision-making. He must now take corrective action.

The county commissioners have already stated that background checks will be mandatory for all new hires. As an agent of the commissioners, Catapano should present the new policy, which will serve to protect the library's assets, in a positive light. He should inform the staff that criminal history checks are covered by the Fair Credit Reporting Act, which requires employers to notify applicants of and obtain their consent to a background investigation. Therefore, the applicant is aware that a criminal check will be done and can elect not to apply if she/he prefers not to have a police record divulged even though it is a matter of public record. Catapano should also explain that an otherwise suitable applicant's criminal conviction would not necessarily rule out employment but would be reviewed based on the nature of the offense, when it occurred, and its relevance to the job.

In determining whether or not to extend the background check policy to cover existing employees, Catapano should be conferring with other branch directors rather than his staff. The directors should agree upon a uniform policy to be followed throughout the system. In their deliberations, Catapano and his colleagues must keep in mind that Intelisano and perhaps others would not give the required consent to a criminal check. Since background checks must be administered on an "all or none" basis in order to be nondiscriminatory, if the decision is made to require them, the managers could lose staff who refuse to comply. As a compromise, managers may want to consider requiring background checks on current staff members only when they seek a new position within the system.

Catapano should then meet privately with Intelisano, who is clearly distressed by the possibility of having to undergo a background check. Intelisano could be hiding something more serious than the implied charge of marijuana possession while in college, or he could have a genuine fear that information obtained will be misconstrued and/or misused. However, his argument equating staff privacy rights to those of patrons overlooks some important distinctions, the obvious one being that library staff are paid for their services with public monies and therefore are subject to public scrutiny. In addition, staff responsibilities often include contact with vulnerable populations such as children or the elderly and access to library funds.

Furthermore, the library can be held liable for the actions of its staff members. These factors not only justify but demand the utmost diligence in the hiring process, including a criminal history check. Catapano should reassure Intelisano that any infraction uncovered during a background check on a current employee would be evaluated according to the charge and its job relevance.

Catapano should listen to any further recommendations or concerns that Intelisano, Harvey, and Feinsod may have; however, his decision should be based on what is best for the library, not the majority opinion of his staff. While it is commendable that he is open to staff input, he should make it clear that the final decision rests with him.

Catapano followed good management practice by getting staff input during the decision-making process. He explained the county commissioners' reasoning for requesting background checks on all potential new employees, i.e., a person with a criminal record for theft had been hired and caught stealing.

Intelisano offered a solid counterargument that the county would not do background checks before issuing library cards. Prohibiting users from having a card because they had a history of theft would most likely prove to be an infringement on their civil liberties, as perhaps would the background checks on current employees if brought to court.

There is a possibility that a criminal background check might cause a functioning staff member to be fired. It's highly likely that current employees would feel sympathy for the dismissed staff member, which could cause dissention among the staff. In library environments, the staff is appropriately sensitive to issues of privacy, and it does seem unfair or possibly illegal to punish a current employee who was not hired under the policy of a background check.

If considering instituting criminal background checks, the director should have first called library counsel for guidance. The attorney should have a strong knowledge of employment law and would let the director know how and when a criminal background check can be used and how to avoid possible litigation as a result of a check preventing a hire. Once a decision is made, a written policy should be put in place.

Obviously, background checks for new hires could prevent the employment of an individual with a criminal past that could be especially risky for a public library environment. Changing library policy to allow for background checks for new hires could prevent the hiring of a convicted pedophile to work in a library where children, some unattended, visit regularly. As with most personnel decisions, managerial judgment would come into play. For example, discovering that a middle-aged librarian was arrested for smoking pot in college probably wouldn't be a good reason to deny employment.

Investigating current employees is harsh and probably would upset and offend the staff. It's likely best to make the background check a policy for all potential future employees and leave the personal history of employees who are already working at the library alone.

Catapano has opened a Pandora's box by telling the staff that he will go with the majority opinion. One hopes he is a manager because he has more experience than the staff in matters of personnel. It probably would have been better if Catapano asked for staff input, thought it over, talked with a few other smart managers, and then made a decision. He could then explain the rationale to his employees and let them know why he had decided to take a particular course of action.