The Board of Regents addressed faculty concerns regarding privacy, ambiguity and potential for abuse before it implemented its new criminal background check policy, a top official representing state professors said Wednesday.

Hugh Hudson, chair of the department of history at Georgia State University and executive secretary of the Georgia Conference of the American Association of University Professors, said the policy that went into effect Jan. 1 at the University represents the middle ground in a proposal that initially concerned faculty.

“We worked together harmoniously (with the Board of Regents) to come up with a draft that was then provided for the units” in the University System of Georgia, Hudson said. “The policy that came out offered security to the individual faculty. … (The regents) recognize that individuals have rights.”

Professor John Morrow led faculty efforts early last year to address policy concerns with University System Chancellor Erroll Davis.

“We had reservations about the nature of the fact that a private company would have” employees’ criminal records, Morrow said.

Morrow submitted a resolution in February 2007 to the Georgia Conference of the American Association of University Professors outlining several grievances with the policy, including concern that faculty were not consulted in its initial formulation and its scope and procedures were unclear.

Also, the policy put faculty at risk of identity theft or invasion of privacy, which made the hiring process less friendly – especially toward international faculty – and was a disproportionate liability compared to the relatively small benefits, Morrow’s resolution read.

University Council appointed a committee to address faculty concerns, and the committee planned to relay its findings to Davis, Morrow said.

Hudson said some of the issues faculty had were rectified by defining what type of information would be obtained about employees and by allowing each college or university within the University System to address employee infractions on a case-by-case basis.

“Ultimately in a university setting we have to make decisions about what (crimes are) germane … and what are not,” he said. “You don’t want a policy that is blind to reality.”

Hudson said concerns about the policy slowing down the hiring process are well-founded, but the process will speed up once it becomes more routine.

One concern faculty presented, Morrow said, was that international hires might have to wait months for their records to arrive from their home countries. Hudson said recent Homeland Security policies require those employees to submit to criminal background checks before they arrive in America, which means universities here will not have to worry about that delay.

Several University officials said parts of the policy are still unclear.

Ron Hamlin, manager of campus transit, said he already receives information on his drivers’ traffic history, but is not sure how the new Board of Regents policy affects his employees.

“The best I can figure is that it is administered by the Human Resources department,” he said. “To the best of my knowledge they’ll tell us if there is a problem hiring an employee due to his criminal history,” he said.

Pat Miller, chair of the department of psychology, said the policy is not completely clear and she hopes it will not slow down the hiring process.

“We department heads need a lot more detailed information about what sorts of appointments have to have the background check and which sorts don’t, most specifically graduate students, who conduct research or teach classes,” she said.

Miller said she requested more information and is awaiting a response.

Hudson said the policy shows opposing sides can come together for a positive resolution.

“We hope that we set an example for our students,” he said. “Some of us are not 100 percent satisfied with the final decision, but that’s just the way life is.”