Lawmakers want to strike ‘good moral character’ from occupational licensing criteria |

Lawmakers want to strike ‘good moral character’ from occupational licensing criteria

Deb Erdley

A bipartisan coalition of Pennsylvania lawmakers wants to eliminate the requirement that applicants to 23 state occupational licensing boards be of “good moral character.”

The proposal comes on the heels of a lawsuit the Institute for Justice filed late last year challenging the Pennsylvania Board of Cosmetology’s decision to deny two women with old criminal records the opportunity to take its licensing examination based on the character standard.

The so-called PA Fresh Start lawsuit, which is working its way through the Commonwealth Court, calls the requirement vague, discriminatory and unconstitutional.

The proposed measure that is scheduled to be introduced Wednesday in Harrisburg in both the state House and Senate would standardize and limit the number of conditions governing the suspension, revocation or denial of occupational licenses for ex-cons. It also would direct boards and commissions to consider the nature of the offense, the amount of time that has passed since the conviction, evidence of the applicant’s fitness to practice the occupation among other factors.

Lawyers appealing the cosmetology board’s ruling said officials on that board have yet to defend its stand.

“The (Cosmetology) Board hasn’t yet tried to explain why cosmetology applicants should have to prove that they’re good people. Instead, it’s filed procedural objections saying our lawsuit should be dismissed for technical reasons. Most of the Board’s argument is that our clients should spend time, money, and energy going through the application process again just in case the Board changes its mind,” said Andrew Ward, an attorney with the Institute.

The nonprofit organization is looking at laws across the country that pose barriers to employment for those with prior criminal records.

Those efforts come as criminal justice reform measures at the state and federal level aim to reduce incarceration and provide paths to reintegrate ex-offenders back into society.

Advocates argue some licensing requirements are keeping qualified, well-trained individuals out of occupations facing manpower shortages.

“One of our staff wrote an op-ed about California where prisoners can volunteer to fight fires, but if the prisoner is released it is almost impossible to get an EMT license that is required for first responders,” Institute for Justice spokesman Andrew Weimer said.

State Reps. Jordan Harris, D-Philadelphia and the Democratic whip, and Sheryl Delozier, R-Cumberland, are co-sponsoring the proposed change in licensing requirements in the state House, while state Sens. John DiSanto, R-Dauphin/Perry, and Judy Schwank, D-Berks, will introduce it in the Senate.

Weimer said Florida recently passed a similar measure aimed at ending what criminal justice reform advocates call the collateral damage that stems from criminal convictions when ex-cons who have done their time find themselves barred from employment.

In Pennsylvania, where professional boards and commissions oversee licensing for more than 1 million licensees, such a measure could have wide-ranging impacts.

Deb Erdley is a Tribune-Review staff writer. You can contact Deb at 724-850-1209, [email protected] or via Twitter .

Categories: News | Pennsylvania
TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.