Court's proposed record policy could affect prescreening companies

OKLAHOMA CITY — New public access rules developed by the Oklahoma Supreme Court would make it more difficult for companies that do prehiring background checks, officials with those companies said this week.

The rules, set to take effect June 10, require removal of personal information such as Social Security numbers, birth dates, addresses and other data from court filings. The rules also limit the number of documents available through the Oklahoma Supreme Court Network (OSCN) Web site.

Companies that perform background checks said the court’s rules will “severely limit” their ability to serve their clients.
“Although a person’s date of birth may be safe from the public, that same person may very likely be put at risk in the workplace because their employer will no longer be able to obtain adequate background checks on new hires,” said David Blanton, owner of PreHire Screening Service in Oklahoma City.

Blanton, who says his company performs about 10,000 background checks a year, told The Associated Press “the new rules could have an unintended negative effect, because companies may put workers in jeopardy by hiring applicants with violent criminal backgrounds.”

He said his company could face increased liability if it supplied incomplete information as a result of erroneous reports.
Norman private investigator Frank Gaynor agreed.

Gaynor, president of Norman-based Lighthouse Investigators, said the change would affect his business.

“It’s going to affect me because I do a lot of work on the Internet,” he said. “But it won’t affect me in Norman, because I can still go to the courthouse.”

And though Gaynor acknowledged the rule change would “cause a problem” for private investigators, he said he didn’t necessarily disagree with the court’s action.

“I do think that some public access is abused,” he said. “From a stalker standpoint.”

Tracy Seabrook, executive director of the National Association of Professional Background Screeners, said no other state has in place a records policy as restrictive as the new Oklahoma court rule.

She said others have tried such policies, but later backtracked after many who use court records pointed out problems. Seabrook said that includes North Carolina, where her association has its headquarters.

“We all understand, no one wants their identity stolen,” Seabrook said. “However, if I tell you my birthday right now, you can’t steal my identity with my birthday.”

Gaynor said he was aware of identity theft problems, but said he “hadn’t dealt with it here” in Oklahoma.

“I have dealt with identity issues in other states,” he said. “I’ve heard of it and it is a huge issue. But here, I think the problem is small, less than 5 percent.”

Several open government advocates have criticized the new rules.

Oklahoma Press Association executive director Mark Thomas said some disclosure is necessary when public institutions are used.

“If people want privacy they should settle their affairs in private,” Thomas said. “If they must use the public courts, paid for by taxpayers, they should expect much of their information to be public.”

There are a few sensitive issues such as Social Security numbers, he said, “but the list of items this new rule requires to be redacted, both in paper copies and any online documents is much too broad. Marking out all of that information will, in effect, give us secret courts.”

Oklahoma State University professor Joey Senat said the court should have listened to other parties interested in open government.

“I think there needs to be a more public process than letters sent to an administrator,” Senat, a former president of FOI Oklahoma Inc., said. “I’d like to see hearings, at the very least.”

Oklahoma Supreme Court Justice James Winchester said the new rules may be revisited before they take effect in June.
Winchester and Justices Tom Colbert, Rudolph Hargrave, Joseph Watt, John Reif voted for the rules. Justice Steven Taylor opposed the rules. Vice Chief Justice James Edmondson and Justice Yvonne Kauger agreed with some of the rules and disagreed with others. Justice Marian Opala did not vote.