Having a potential employer dig around in your past isn’t a comfortable thought, even for those who don’t have any skeletons in the closet, but it’s a different perspective when you’re the employer.

That’s the case for the taxpayers of Biddeford, York County’s largest city, which employs a variety of people, from cleaning crews to a city manager.

The charter commission is considering creation of an ordinance for conducting criminal background checks for those who work or volunteer with the city. If approved by the commission, the issue would eventually go to voters.

At this time, school employees already undergo background checks, since they work with children and the check is part of their certification. The police department conducts annual checks of driver’s licenses for Department of Public Works employees, and when hiring heads of city departments thorough background investigations are conducted.

For the rest of the city’s employees, however, criminal background checks are not currently required. That’s an oversight that could get the city into hot water, and we agree with Police Chief Roger Beaupre that running a check would be a good idea.

When hiring, it makes sense to know whether or not an applicant has a criminal background that could affect their ability to be trusted in the position. Beaupre’s example of hiring someone for the finance department who has a record of embezzlement is a good one. York County has had more than its fair share of seemingly good people ”“ the type of people who volunteer to organize festivals and operate youth sports groups ”“ who have broken the trust of their peers by stealing from the very organizations they were there to support.

It would be easy to take a look at such a person’s resume and community involvement, but then get burned, not even knowing if they have a record of financial crime in their past. Sometimes references will warn the new employer about issues, but they might not know in some cases, or choose not to share the information.

The other main issue is that of liability. In these days of widespread litigation, the city could be held liable for negligence if it fails to conduct a background check and puts a convicted criminal in a situation where they have an opportunity to re-offend.

The only drawback to this proposal is the expense, which can vary depending on which background check agency is used. If the city wants a complete, nationwide check of each employee, it’s going to come at a cost. With that in mind, it might be wise for the charter commission to delineate which positions should require a background check. Maybe those in the finance department, human services or city clerk’s office, where sensitive information is being handled, would warrant it, while the mayor’s secretary, cleaning crew, codes, planning and other employees could be exempted. Such delineation would also give more people a chance to rebuild their lives by finding employment opportunities after a conviction.

Chief Beaupre said that the police department conducts not only a criminal background check, but also investigates employment references, interviews neighbors and gives a polygraph test.

While it’s comforting to know that our law enforcement officers have passed that level of scrutiny, such detail is not necessary for city employees and indeed, checks may not be necessary for all city employees. A simple criminal background check for those in sensitive positions, however, is just doing due diligence and is good business sense.

Ӣ Ӣ Ӣ

Today’s editorial was written by Managing Editor Kristen Schulze Muszynski, representing the majority opinion of the Journal Tribune Editorial Board. Questions? Comments? Contact Kristen by calling 282-1535, Ext. 322, or via email at kristenm@journaltribune.com.