'Ban the box' proposal heads for Indianapolis council

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard is supporting a Democratic city-county councilor's proposal to ban questions on job applications about past criminal convictions.

Councilor Vop Osili, who has pushed since 2012 to “ban the box,” sponsored a proposal that had been set to be introduced to the council Monday. City government, however, was closed Monday because of the winter storm and subzero temperatures, and the council meeting was rescheduled to Jan. 27. Osili's proposal will likely be referred to the council’s Public Safety and Criminal Justice Committee.

Ballard spokesman Marc Lotter said the Republican mayor's staff is working with Osili on changes to the language of the proposed ordinance, which he wouldn't specify.

"We support the concept," Lotter said.

Osili couldn’t be reached for comment.

The draft ordinance would govern hiring practices of the city, its vendors and recipients of economic incentives. The last category covers any entity receiving tax-increment revenue, tax abatements, bond proceeds or real estate at a reduced cost, and as the proposal acknowledges, includes numerous companies with “hundreds” of employees.

The affected employers would be prohibited from asking about prior convictions on job applications as well as in first-round interviews, unless the applicant offers the information voluntarily. The local rule would not affect background checks required by state or federal law or the hiring processes established by trade unions.

The proposal makes Ballard’s office responsible for vetting hiring practices of city contractors and incentive recipients. The city already has a history of hiring people with convictions. Helping people overcome their criminal past is a priority for Ballard, who established the Office of Re-entry.


  • my self and others
    Im a 19 year old male attempting to find a job i have a felony i was trialed as an adult at the age of 17 im hoping this law gets passed so it could be easier for people who have made mistakes an have accepted their mistake and have learned from it to get a job an be able to move on with their life and be able to provide for them self's and possibly their family -NEVER JUDGE A BOOK BY ITS COVER OR A PERSON BY THEIR PAST
  • Good Grief
    "The affected employers would be prohibited from asking about prior convictions on job applications as well as in first-round interviews" "The local rule would not affect background checks required by state or federal law or the hiring processes established by trade unions." Reading comprehension is a good thing. As I see it the proposal still allows for further vetting (including criminal checks) if an employer is serious about a candidate. It also does not supersede existing laws, so no "child molester working for the Parks Dept" as Indyman states. I've worked with some excellent individuals who were ex-cons. They made mistakes, paid the price and learned from the experience. Luckily my employer was willing to give them a second chance. Personally I'd trust them before I'd trust many of the C-Suite shysters I've dealt with over the years.
  • If there is a person who is guilty of ID theft, I don't have an issue if he works as a mechanic but I would rather he not work some where with access to personal and financial info. I agree with giving people a second chance, but I also think you need to keep them away from temptation. Do we want a child molester working for the Parks Dept?
  • So What's Your Solution?
    If you guys are against hiring criminals, then how do you propose that we stop them from committing crimes again? One of the reasons this country has so many repeat offenders is because it is virtually impossible to get a legitimate job once one has been in jail. So then these ex-offenders just go back on the streets because that's where they can make money.
  • Opposed to Ban the Box
    I am opposed to the "Ban the Box" legislation. People who have committed crimes should have to advise prospective employers of their past transgressions. Employers can ultimately be held accountable for actions of their employees, so why should candidates be able to hide behind the law?
  • Shocking
    So we will now fill our government positions with ex cons. (there are so many cracks possible that I will refrain)

Post a comment to this story

We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in IBJ editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ on Facebook:
Follow on TwitterFollow IBJ's Tweets on these topics:
Subscribe to IBJ
  1. President Obama has referred to the ACA as "Obamacare" any number of times; one thing it is not, if you don't qualify for a subsidy, is "affordable".

  2. One important correction, Indiana does not have an ag-gag law, it was soundly defeated, or at least changed. It was stripped of everything to do with undercover pictures and video on farms. There is NO WAY on earth that ag gag laws will survive a constitutional challenge. None. Period. Also, the reason they are trying to keep you out, isn't so we don't show the blatant abuse like slamming pigs heads into the ground, it's show we don't show you the legal stuf... the anal electroctions, the cutting off of genitals without anesthesia, the tail docking, the cutting off of beaks, the baby male chicks getting thrown alive into a grinder, the deplorable conditions, downed animals, animals sitting in their own excrement, the throat slitting, the bolt guns. It is all deplorable behavior that doesn't belong in a civilized society. The meat, dairy and egg industries are running scared right now, which is why they are trying to pass these ridiculous laws. What a losing battle.

  3. Eating there years ago the food was decent, nothing to write home about. Weird thing was Javier tried to pass off the story the way he ended up in Indy was he took a bus he thought was going to Minneapolis. This seems to be the same story from the founder of Acapulco Joe's. Stopped going as I never really did trust him after that or the quality of what being served.

  4. Indianapolis...the city of cricket, chains, crime and call centers!

  5. "In real life, a farmer wants his livestock as happy and health as possible. Such treatment give the best financial return." I have to disagree. What's in the farmer's best interest is to raise as many animals as possible as quickly as possible as cheaply as possible. There is a reason grass-fed beef is more expensive than corn-fed beef: it costs more to raise. Since consumers often want more food for lower prices, the incentive is for farmers to maximize their production while minimizing their costs. Obviously, having very sick or dead animals does not help the farmer, however, so there is a line somewhere. Where that line is drawn is the question.