Court ruling does not affect Delphos

Published:  Saturday, June 13, 2009 (9 months ago)
Print

Staff Reports

A recent Ohio Supreme Court ruling decided cities cannot require municipal employees to reside within a respective corporation limit. Though the court’s decision was received unfavorably by many mayors around the state, Delphos Mayor Michael Gallmeier is not one of them.
“We don’t require our employees to live inside the city limit; we have a seven-mile radius,” he said. “Now, if for some reason, the court were to ever reverse its decision and say employees may be forced to live in the city, then new hires may be subjected to it if the city were to change its policy but we’ve always had a seven-mile radius as long as I’ve been here.”
Roughly 130 Ohio cities and villages have some form of a residency requirement that would be invalidated by the ruling.
The cities of Akron and Lima, which already had residency laws on their books, challenged the constitutionality of the state law once it went into effect. They, along with Cleveland, said during oral arguments before the court in January that residency laws helped their tax base, maximized emergency services and made their workers more responsive to local concerns.
Unions representing local government employees sided with the state, saying the residency requirements discriminate against employees who may not be able to live within a city because of personal reasons, such as family constraints.
“For a long time, this has been an issue that we didn’t feel was right that someone could be forced to live somewhere they don’t want to,” said Michael Watkins, president of the Fraternal Order of Police in Lima. Police officers have been fighting residency requirements since Lima passed an ordinance in 2000 that requires new hires to live in the city.
Watkins said he thinks the rule has hurt the city’s ability to hire qualified people for some positions because applicants are not always willing to move.
Lima Mayor David Berger said the court ruling “gutted” home-rule for Ohio’s cities.
“We want these people to be in our neighborhoods, to be in our churches,” Berger said about the city’s employees. “We want those people to be a part of our community.”
City leaders are looking at their options as they cope with the court’s decision.
Mayor Jay Williams of Youngstown raised the possibility Thursday of overturning the ruling through a statewide ballot question to change the Ohio Constitution. He says there’s widespread support in Youngstown for continuing to require that city workers live in town.
But Cleveland Councilman Kevin Kelley says amending the Constitution would be costly and time-consuming. He says such a move would depend on the extent of grass roots support.
Police, firefighters and other municipal employees applauded the residency ruling, which allows them to live where they choose.
The court ruled 5-2 that a 2006 state law forbidding residency requirements overrides local government home-rule powers. The ruling overturns the decision by a state appeals court that the state law was unconstitutional because it trampled on local government rights.
Justice Paul Pfeifer, writing for the majority, said the Ohio Constitution’s authorization of the Legislature to enact laws “providing for the comfort, health, safety and general welfare of all employees” overrode any other legal arguments, because such arguments — including those for home-rule powers — would only erode the power granted to the Legislature.
Pfeifer’s opinion was joined by Justices Evelyn Lundberg Stratton, Maureen O’Connor, Terrence O’Donnell and Robert Cupp.
Justice Judith Lanzinger wrote a dissenting opinion arguing that the majority opinion gave too much power to the Legislature. She was joined by Chief Justice Thomas Moyer.
Lanzinger said state lawmakers’ power to regulate the health and safety of employees referred only to the performance of their job duties, not to where they live during non-work hours.
The City of Cleveland, which established its residency law with a vote of its people in 1982, agreed with Lanzinger’s take.
“This decision has given the legislature more authority than exists in the Ohio constitution,” said Councilman Kevin Kelley. “In doing so, the Court has diminished the ability of local elected officials to govern.”
Paul Hlynsky, president of the Fraternal Order of Police Lodge 7 representing about 460 Akron police officers, said his rank-and-file members were delighted with the ruling.
“We’re thrilled, we’re overjoyed,” he said. “There won’t be any mass exodus of police officers. We feel that this will benefit police officer families. Our mayor touts regionalism all the time and here he is, trying to force people to live in the city.”

The Associated Press contributed to this story.

0 Reader Responses to “Court ruling does not affect Delphos”

Complete the form below to leave a response of your own.