Provide for disclosure of criminal records between DOR and DOJ and fingerprinting of certain employees
The introduction of HB 790 is set to significantly alter the hiring and employment practices of the DOR. By implementing mandatory fingerprinting and criminal background checks, the bill aims to bolster the integrity of the department and protect taxpayer information from potential misuse. This could lead to a stricter hiring environment where the evaluation of employees is rigorously based on their criminal history, potentially affecting the pool of applicants for jobs requiring federal data access. The revenue department will be responsible for the costs associated with these background checks, adding a new layer of operational expenditure.
House Bill 790 seeks to enhance the security and verification processes regarding employees who have access to sensitive taxpayer information within the Department of Revenue (DOR). The bill mandates that the DOR request criminal history background checks from the Department of Justice (DOJ) for employees who handle federal taxpayer data. This initiative is aimed at complying with federal requirements, ensuring that individuals with access to sensitive information are screened for any prior criminal offenses that may impact their suitability for such a role.
Overall, the sentiment surrounding HB 790 appears to be cautious yet supportive, as stakeholders recognize the importance of secure handling of sensitive taxpayer data. Supporters argue that the bill is a necessary measure to ensure that individuals entrusted with sensitive information do not have a history that could pose a risk. However, there may be underlying concerns regarding privacy and the implications of heightened scrutiny on potential employees, particularly in terms of how previous offenses are viewed in relation to job eligibility.
While there is general support for the accountability measures proposed in HB 790, potential contention may arise around the implications of criminal record checks on hiring practices. There could be debates regarding fairness for those individuals with past offenses, especially non-violent ones, and whether they should be disproportionately impacted when applying for positions that are inherently secure. Some legislators or advocacy groups may voice concerns about the balance between maintaining security and offering opportunities for rehabilitation for those with prior criminal records.