State Rep. Marlin Schneider has introduced his newest piece of legislation yesterday - Assembly Bill 340. Schneider’s newest bill will once again interfere with a landlord’s ability to properly screen his/her applicants through CCAP.
First, AB-340 will require most users of CCAP to register and pay an annual fee. Second, It will also require you to inform an applicant if you denied them rental as a result of information you obtained from CCAP and if you fail to do so you can be fined $1,000. Finally, and what bothers me most, is that no pending cases (criminal or civil) will appear on CCAP until after the case has been concluded. So if the person that just applied to rent from you is doing so becasue their current landlord recently filed an eviction against them — you will not be able to learn this from CCAP — until it may be too late. You also may not learn until after you have already accepted them as a tenant, that a recent applicant was just charged with the manufacture and distribution of a controlled substance.
You can read AB-340 in its entirety here.
If you would like to read my earlier blog posts on this topic go here and here.
No matter what you do I hope that you will consider contacting both your state representative and state senator and express your strong opposition to this piece of legislation.
#1 by Rick W on August 29th, 2009
| Quote
I disagree, I think the bill does some good. Especially by allowing people who were found not guilty to remove the charges from CCAP. This only makes sense to me!
#2 by Jeff B. on November 26th, 2009
| Quote
I sincerely hope this bill gets passed. In fact, I think CCAP should be stopped altogether. How can we expect a person to be rehabilitated and become a contributing member of society when they are branded with a scarlet letter for the rest of their life?
#3 by A.J. on January 7th, 2010
| Quote
CCAP has basically ruined my life and my family’s life.
#4 by DH on November 29th, 2010
| Quote
Would you say that it would NOT be against the law in Madison to tell a prospective tenant that my requirements for acceptance of any rental application are: 1)no evictions in the past 2)need rental history 3)that they can show proof that they have been able to pay the asking rental amount over the past 24 months with income from any lawful source or combination of lawful sources?
Thanks!
#5 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on November 30th, 2010
| Quote
DH — You are asking for me to give you specific legal advice which I cannot do via this blog. Drafting screening criteria is a very important process. I would reccomend that you retain a lawyer to assist you with this. You may want to specifically want to contact an attorney that practices in the City of Madison and Dane County as those areas have additional protected classes which you might inadvertantly discriminate against if you are not well versed in ths area of the law.
#6 by mrg on January 26th, 2011
| Quote
TO the ediitor.
It is a shame this bill did not get passed
Tiered access is a necessity to CCAP.
You worry about landloards, PLEASE! You must be one. People have a right to have a place to live.
I was charged (CHARGED) with a minor nonviolent felony, Accessory to a crime in 1999 and it was proven I was not involved and was dismissed. It is my only single “criminal history”
I was a white color worker with a six figure income.
BUT everyone who looks on CCAP sees my “FELONY”. Nobody bothers to investigate and see it was dismissed.
I lost my job, my home and my girlfriend at the time.
I want to work, Nobody will talk to me. Because of CCAP I can not get a job, I am stuck on welfare. I have been denied rent and even have trouble getting a date.
Females look at CCAP and label me a “FELON”. I have heard so many times “I don’t date criminals, CLICK”
I am not a Felon at all.
But CCAP creates this public perception and NEVER lets you forget.
NO Judge or Person can remove anything from CCAP.
My life and reputation is ruined. even moving to another state did not help.
So Mr Editor, Innocent until PROVEN guilty is our standard of measure. But not CCAP.
I have spoken to many people where CCAP has ruined reputations and caused harm.
Only REAL convictions, Convicted Felons, Drug cases and violent misdemeanors should be available to on Public CCAP.
All other records are available at the courthouse.
Civil cases should not be on CCAP or should have paid access for those who absolutely need such access.
What did everyone do before their was CCAP ??? You went to the courthouse and looked it up. That way only those who needed to know bothered to look someone up.
That was a much better system.
CCAP makes Discrimination too easy.
..
.
#7 by Tristan R. Pettit, Esq. on January 27th, 2011
| Quote
Hello mrg — Thank you for taking the time to provide your comments. While I certainly do not know what it feels like to “stand in your shoes” I can empathize.
Yes I am also a landlord in addition to an attorney that represents landlords.
Many educated landlords that I know, do know the difference between criminal charges being filed and a criminal conviction. Many also do know how to determine the difference on CCAP. I also know many landlords that, if the applicant is “up front” about any past criminal charges and/or conviction, will appreciate an applicant’s forthrightness and will listen to an explanation and still consider you the applicant’s application.
I am not an employment law attorney but I do believe that an employer can only reject you if your conviction is reasonably related to the work that you are applying to do. For example, a person with an embezzlement conviction who applies to work at a bank, could be rejected for the position. I do not know what your criminal charge was so I cannot comment further, but if you think that you have been discriminated against in your employment, you may want to pursue that further.
As far as dating, I don’t have much to tell you — in a world where people will refuse to date you if they don’t like your hair color or becasue of how you wear your hat, I can see where a criminal charge regardless of the result, could be a hindrance.
The larger issue as I see it — and I realize this is of little consolation to you — is the concept of open records. Open records are “open” and they should also be accessible. I can provide you with many examples where the information on CCAP has assisted many people in good and positive ways. I will not go into detail of those situations as I realize that that is of little consolation to you — but I mention fact for others that may read this comment. Whether or not thos positives outweight the negatives or vice versa is for th elegislature to decide. It appears that they have put that issue off for the time being.
Thank you again for your comments and I wish you the best of luck.
T