Louisiana House Bill HB268

Louisiana 2017 Regular Session

• Introduced: 3/30/17
• Refer: 3/30/17
• Refer: 4/10/17
• Report Pass: 5/2/17
• Engrossed: 5/10/17
• Refer: 5/11/17
• Report Pass: 5/23/17
• Refer: 5/24/17
• Report Pass: 5/30/17
• Enrolled: 6/2/17
• Chaptered: 6/12/17
• Passed: 6/12/17

Caption

Provides relative to criminal history records checks for agencies with access to federal tax information, criminal history record information, or state issued REAL ID information (EN INCREASE GF EX See Note)

Impact

The enactment of HB 268 would significantly enhance the vetting process for personnel in various state agencies, aligning Louisiana's laws with federal standards regarding security clearances and employment within sensitive sectors. By instituting regular checks, including mandatory verification every ten years for existing employees, the legislation seeks to mitigate risks associated with personnel in positions of trust, ensuring that they do not have criminal backgrounds that could compromise agency operations or public safety.

Summary

House Bill 268 aims to establish protocols for conducting criminal history records checks for current and prospective employees, contractors, and subcontractors in agencies that have access to federal tax information, criminal history record information, or state-issued REAL ID information. The bill introduces the requirement of fingerprinting and national, state, and local criminal history checks as a condition for employment in these agencies, highlighting the importance of security and integrity in roles involving sensitive information.

Sentiment

The sentiment surrounding HB 268 appears to be largely positive among supporters who emphasize the need for stricter controls in public service jobs. Proponents argue that these measures are essential for protecting the integrity of public services and safeguarding the interests of citizens. However, some concerns may arise regarding the additional logistical burdens this places on agencies, particularly related to the costs associated with implementing such comprehensive checks, although no significant opposition to the bill was noted in the discussions.

Contention

Concerns may arise from the practical implications of the bill, especially regarding the potential costs incurred by agencies for conducting these checks and how these will be managed without diverting resources from other vital areas. Additionally, the process of periodically vetting existing employees could create debates about job security and employee privacy rights, with some advocating for a balance that ensures both safety and fairness in the workplace.