Asm. Amanda Septimo

Debate centered on whether educational institutions and employers should be permitted to require applicants to disclose confidential criminal history records from the Division of Criminal Justice Services. Supporters argued the bill closes a loophole by preventing mandatory disclosure of confidential records to entities not legally entitled to them. Opponents, including educators and parents, expressed concern that the bill would prevent colleges and universities from accessing criminal history information for housing and campus safety purposes, particularly regarding students with histories of violence or sexual crimes.

Argued the bill does not change existing law regarding which agencies and employers are entitled to access criminal records. Stated that authorized agencies and employers will continue to have access through established channels, and those seeking access can petition to be added to the authorized list. Emphasized the bill only prevents employers from compelling individuals to disclose confidential information they are not entitled to request.

The bill prevents institutions from compelling disclosure of confidential criminal history records when they are not legally entitled to access them. It does not prevent institutions from conducting other background checks using public information or from accessing records they are entitled to under existing law.

The bill does not change access for authorized agencies and employers already entitled to criminal history records by law. It only prevents employers from compelling individuals to disclose confidential records they are not entitled to access, protecting privacy while maintaining legitimate law enforcement and institutional access.

Commended the sponsor and Speaker for the herculean effort, framed the bill as charting New York's future by acknowledging harm and seeking rectification, and noted the bill addresses vestiges of slavery like mass incarceration and redlining.