*4074 (From Chancellor Christensen via Nancy Castilow in an e-mail sent on2/18/13: No t supported.  As with Resolution 4073, which I opposed, in part, because of its reference to all  NU campuses, I also believe this to be a safety issue for which we have legal and fiduciary responsibility.  In summary, the absence of some form of background checks for persons employed on campus seems in opposition to best practices.)

*4073 (From Chancellor Christensen via Nancy Castilow in an e-mail sent on1/23/13: The Chancellor cannot support and would like to discuss this resolution at today's Faculty Senate Exec. Committee / Administration meeting.

*4054 (Legal Opinion): From: John C. Hewitt [mailto:jhewitt@clinewilliams.com] ; Sent: Tuesday, July 17, 2012 9:11 PM;
To: Ed Wimes; Subject: Background Checks.
Ed,

In a response to my email of July 14, you have indicated that at this time you anticipate that the "background check" at the University of Nebraska at Omaha will consist of the University reviewing public records (i.e., sex offender registry, criminal convictions, etc.) for applicants for employment.  Based on the foregoing you have inquired whether such an approach would constitute a mandatory subject of bargaining.

The simple answer is that the University could, in my opinion, proceed to implement such an approach for applicants without any discussions.  The obligation to bargain in good faith concerning mandatory subjects is generally limited to the current employees of an employer.  There is generally no obligation to negotiate concerning prospective employees.  Star Tribune, 295 NLRB 543 (1989).

If there remains any discussion about expanding such an approach to current employees, then the answer becomes more complicated.  Nevertheless, I do not believe that the University would be required to bargain over the decision to review public records at its own cost and expense.  As I indicated previously, this decision would likely be within the employer's managerial discretion.  However, I also believe that the University would be required to bargain over the "effects" of such a decision; such as (a) whether any information in a person's criminal record would remain confidential; (b) whether certain employees would be exempted based upon length of exemplary work records; (c) the appeal rights of employees who claim that they have been incorrectly identified of having been convicted of a particular crime or who believe there are extenuating circumstances that would exclude their disqualification; and (d) the categories of offenses that would result in automatically exclusion from employment.

If you would like to discuss further, please do not hesitate to call.

John C. Hewitt; jhewitt@clinewilliams.com ; CLINE WILLIAMS WRIGHT JOHNSON & OLDFATHER, L.L.P.; 1125 S.103rd Street, Suite 600; Omaha, Nebraska 68154; Phone 402.397.1700/Fax 402.397.1806

*3079 (From Chancellor Christensen via Nancy Castilow in an e-mail sent on 4/15/11: Acknowledged, but not supported. Chancellor's Comment: Not supported. Chancellor's Comment: “While I continue to be an advocate for shared governance, I will not support 3079, as I am unable to support any resolution which defines the role and responsibilities of the University's governing board, the office of the chancellor, or other administrator, which is outside the purview of the Faculty Senate.” )

2944 (From the EC & Admin Mtg 1/21/09: The Chancellor supports the concept in Resolution 2944 on funding an UCRCA budget line but opined we wouldn't get it during the years of budgetary problems.) (6/10/09 Nancy Castilow wrote for Chanc. Christensen: “ One clarification related to Res. 2944, dealing with ongoing support of the UCRCA budget. I said that I was open to the concept and supportive of continued funding of the UCRCA budget, albeit we would need to review its funding during times of budget constraints, as we do with other such programs. The decision to fund and how much to fund remains the purview of the Office of Academic Affairs. I did not opine that the UCRCA budget line would automatically see no funding during years of budgetary problems.”) (return to table)