Home Rule Rehash

The lights are slowly coming on for the purveyors of local print media when it comes to last weeks SCO ruling on residency ruling. The order to uphold a state law banning residency requirements as term of employment certainly did in the idea of employees having a vested interest in the communities they protect. The real change to the local governance landscape was of course the signal that that the home rule provision in the Ohio constitution was in fact shown the door by the high court.

The majority of the immediate reporting focused on the high fives and histrionics that took place around various city halls and union halls around the state. The police and fire unions had at last exacted a bit of their own justice on the city leaders that have oppressed them for so long. Mayors and managers were apoplectic that the myopic court would render such a deleterious ruling in nonchalant fashion.

While there has been some coverage of the impact on home rule, we are still stuck on the clash of two rival interests described above. I have argued that the provision is now dead and there will be a cascade of impacts on the way localities govern themselves.

For some background on why home rule is now an endangered species I would direct you to a fine piece of reportage by Henry Gomez at the PD. Here the detail behind the court decision and the relevance of Section 34 of the state constitution is parsed. The officials that Gomez quotes reveal the ruling as a gateway drug for power hungry state assemblymen looking to meddle in the affairs of the urban centers of Ohio. First it was predatory lending, gun laws and red light cameras. Next it will be income taxes, employment policies and economic development. The next few years will indeed be indicative of how badly this thing could end up for cities.

Home Rule Goes Poof!

The home rule provision of the Ohio Constitution was laid to rest today by the Supreme Court of Ohio. Today it's residency requirements tomorrow it's income tax rates or something else. The 5-2 ruling upholding a State law barring the residency requirements was to the delight of police and fire unions and the dismay of city officials all over Ohio.

I guess this decision was inevitable. The State Supremes and the General Assembly have been hostile towards the very precept of local control of governance when it comes to large cities in the north end of the state.

Here are some points on the now defunct residency requirements and a sort of postmortem on our dear friend home rule.

Residency Lost

Police unions in particular are happy about the overturn of the requirements in Akron and Cleveland. I suspect Cleveland is going to be worse off than Akron or Lima. The Cleveland Police Department is already redeploying as a hired mercenary force at this hour. I hear that the County Land Bank is willing to buy up all the vacated homes left by police and fire guys fleeing Cleveland proper.

Many will choose to leave their respective cities and live elsewhere.
Still there are plenty of people who will stay in Akron or Cleveland
for a variety of reasons. What makes a community livable and a desirable to live in? Some would say it's all about the schools. Safety and decent neighborhoods are just as or more important. Of course the State is getting to work on fixing school funding so that will negate the school system variable soon enough.

There is still a need to get public safety employees especially police forces to be cognizant of the community vibe so to speak. The residency requirement was sort of a forced fit in trying to attain that end although it was also an assurance to city finance directors of a certain level of captive income tax revenue. It was never perfect and has bred some animosity between the rank and file and city management. This pervasive tension was probably counter productive to the achieving the better effective policing and healthy relations with the community. Akron's steps to strengthen community relations with a citizen review committee can be a positive force in offsetting the lost residency requirement.

I suspect the decision will be a morale booster for public safety forces. The eradication of a perceived hardship could renew the outlook a lot of public safety workers, I hope. There's always something to complain about in ANY line of work (present company included) but this change may translate into better dialogue and respect between both sides.

Wither Home Rule

Here is an aphorism that I just made up, "Everyone likes activist judges
when the decision falls on their side of the policy argument". This one ruling has changed the local governance landscape. The majority's dependence on Section 34, Article II in particular will leave the door open for more home rule erosion.

What is the future of home rule now that Ohio's merry band of Republican justices have struck such a harmful blow to the provision? Will this ruling impact the way cities govern themselves in other areas besides employment practices? How does a mayor or city council evaluate a policy initiative that would seemingly rely on the once safe harbor of home rule?

I think going forward there will be a chilling effect on local governance. One that could inhibit local leaders from thinking boldly when it comes to addressing challenges (think red light cameras and gun ordinances).

With the residency card pulled from the deck, cities may want to find ways to incentivize employees to live in city limits. There are no doubt numerous carrots that could be offered as a way to entice people to remain residents. As a mayor faced with eroding home rule power do you even bother having staff evaluate and assemble policies that could be wiped out by a legal opinion? Who's to say income tax or property tax abatement offered as an enticement to keep resident employees aren't on shaky legal ground now?

Dead Idea or Not?

I just finished reading The Tyranny of Dead Ideas by Matt Miller and think his book speaks to the death of the residency requirement. A dead idea is a conventional wisdom that has reached the end of it's useful life of determining policy outcomes. Perhaps when residency requirements are looked at in conjunction on with regionalism, tax sharing and other 21st trends in local governance their shelf life looks past due.

That may be the case for a policy like residency requirement that had limited application and mixed results. My fear is that home rule is next up for elimination and that would not be good.

Home Rule On Trial

Tomorrow Ohio's cities get to make a case for preserving their ability to craft policy at the local level.  The SCO will hear arguments from the cities of Akron, Lima and Cleveland on whether a State law prohibiting municipal residency requirements should be overturned.  Cleveland was allowed to join in after flubbing the filing.  The court consisting of seven Repubicans will hear arguments from two seperate cases revolving around the residency issue. 

While residency rules for city employees is at the center of the court arguements the real threat is whether or not the court will allow further erosion of the home rule provision of the state consitution.  It's no secret that there's some animosity towards or at least a lack of concern for granting localities the discretion to forge policy as they deem necessary.  The negative vibe is worse for any cities named Cleveland or Akron. 

There's no telling what the court will decide, uphold the lower court ruling striking down the state law (good) or overturn the lower court ruling (bad).  The future of how cities govern themselves is in the balance.  There's no indication on how long the court will take to render an opinion but a few points should be kept in mind.

The State law was crammed through the General Assembly cheifly as a result of one State Senator, Tim ' got his hands in everyhting' Grendell who was considering a run for Attorney General in 2006.  Why not solidfy a large voting block from the F.O.P. and the Firefighter Unions by granting them something from their perenial wish list?  Long story short, Grendell didn't run AG but the law was passed anyway.  Another example of former township trustees dictating what is good and bad for cities.

The police and fire organizations hate residency requirements and that passion has kept the anti-residency law movement alive.  I've found that most big cities myaors have a somewhat adverserial relationship with their safety forces.  Fighting residency laws is a great way to stick it to the admnstration if there is a contentious relationship to begin with.  The public safety employees can always find supporters in Columbus.   Lawmakers are willing to take up the cause even after cities like Akron have had residency requirements approved by voters more than once.  So much for the citizens having a say.

The impact of upholdng the State law will have a corrosive effect on urban neighborhoods.  Scores of police and fire personnel (aside from those already skirting the residency law) will move out of their repsective cities.  Losing the residency requirement would probably have a greater impact on a City like Cleveland that has more to lose through the exodus of resident police, fire and EMS employees.  

The other downside is the long-term detriment to the concept of community policing.  The mission to serve and protect is weakend when the very men and women who are asked to patrol our streets have no vested interest in the community other than earning a paycheck.  As a resident of one of the cites represented I strongly believe that the safety forces are not hired mercenaries but an important piece of the community at large. 

I understand that police and fire place themsleves at great risk to keep us safe and that service is probably the most important one provided by cities.  As a residents and taxpayers we have a stake in the way those services are provided and the way in which our elected leaders govern our localities.  Funny how no one is ever concerned if the accountants or garbagemen are happy with residency requirements.

Powered by ScribeFire.

State AG Office Not Keen On Residency Requirements

The Attorney General's Office is putting it's weight behind the State law that prohibits residency requirements for municipal employees. The reasoning was laid out in a filing with the Ohio Supreme Court submitted in support of the defendants in the pending cases involving Akron and Lima. This latest move against municipalities comes as the Ohio Supreme Court has agreed to rule on the issue. I guess it's no surprise that the Attorney General's Office has decided to lay down a marker on this one. Monday's GONGWER Report details Solicitor General William Marshall's (who knew we had one of these) motivation for the filing on behalf of the State Law:

Solicitor General William Marshall told the court in a brief filed late Friday that the 6^th District Court of Appeals is the third to improperly interpret a section of the Ohio Constitution in concluding the law (SB82, 126^th General Assembly) should be voided.

Justices already have accepted appeals the state filed in the two earlier cases involving the cities of Lima and Akron. The 6^th District subsequently joined them in holding that Toledo's home rule powers allow it to impose a residency requirement on police, fire and other workers.

Mr. Marshall said the 6^th District's ruling invites challenges to other Ohio laws that govern the welfare of workers.

***
Mr. Marshall said the appellate decision also warrants review because it deals with a fundamental question of state and local governance that is being litigated statewide.

Sounds like the Attorney General's Office has to maintain its law and order appearances even it means defending an ill conceived State law that contradicts the home rule powers granted by the State Constitution.

SCO Will Rule on Residency Law

I'm a few days behind on this one but I couldn't pass up on the post. The Ohio Supreme Court will weigh in on municipal residency requirements by ruling on the state law that was created to prohibit them. The court will review two of the past cases one of which the city of Akron's case. From Wednesday's GONGWER report:

City Residency: Separately, the court unanimously agreed to decide the constitutionality of a state law that prohibits municipalities from requiring any of their workers, as a condition of employment, to reside within city limits.

Justices accepted appeals involving the cities of Lima and Akron, and said they would hear oral arguments in both cases on the same day. At the same time, the court rejected Akron's motion to consolidate its case with the one from Lima.

The 3^rd District Court of Appeals struck down the state residency law (SB82, 126^th General Assembly) in a December 2007 case involving Lima.

Earlier this year, the 9^th District followed suit in a decision that also lets cities continue to impose residency requirements on employees. (See Gongwer Ohio Report, February 26, 2008).

Last month, the 6^th District became the third appeals court to rule that municipalities may require their police, fire and other employees to reside within city limits, notwithstanding the new state lawto the contrary.

The 6^th District panel said in a 2-1 opinion that the state law prohibiting residency requirements was "an obvious attempt to circumvent constitutional municipal home rule authority."

I don't have a sense how the court leans when it comes to that thingy in the state constitution called home rule. I do have a notion that they are somwhat supportive of police and fire union interests. I know residency laws have held up in the previous court rulings but past performance is no indicator of future earnings when it comes to Ohio's top court.

Residency Requirements Off Life Support For Now

Local residency requirements have officially been upgraded from critical to guarded condition.  As I posted here in February the reports of the death of local ordinances requiring municipal employees to live within city limits was a bit premature.  Now a third Ohio appellate court has weighed in on residency requirements and affirmed the two previous rulings in favor of cities with such requirements.  Not only is the health of residency requirements looking up for now but his friend home rule is feeling better these days.  The report from GONGWER offers this snippet:

The 6th District Court of Appeals said in a 2-1 opinion that a new state statute prohibiting such residency requirements was "an obvious attempt to circumvent constitutional municipal home rule authority."

The main opposition to residency requirements has come from police and fire unions who state that an undue hardship is placed upon their members.  These groups assert the residency restriction limits the options of housing and other quality of life choices that inevitably lie in the greener grass just on the other side of the city limits.   Now I have worked for a large metro that had a residency requirement and didn't mind it at all.  In fact I was informed of the requirement prior to excepting the job there.  Are the safety forces contending that there has been some deception on the part of muni's that maintain residency rules?    In writing the lead opinion Judge Thomas Osowik offered this somewhat right wing-ish statement:

"Terms and conditions of employment and the choice of whether to accept employment with certain terms and conditions are inherent in all employment decisions in a free market economy,"

Seriously, is it that bad to have to live in a city whose citizens depend on police, fire and EMS personnel to maintain the collective health and safety of the community?   If you prefer not to live in Akron or Cleveland y then you have the right to work for a city that doesn't have a residency requirement don't you?   There are currently two potential cases, including the City of Akron case, that could be heard by the SCO so the final judgement has yet to be rendered.

SCO: Hey This Home Rule Thing is Catchy

I was actually surprised when I heard about the Ohio Supreme Court's ruling in favor of traffic cameras. This case looked like it was going to be one the more contentious issues revolving around the rights of larger cities to implement the cameras. In the end the Court actually invoke the home rule provisions of the Ohio Constitution. Per the GONGWER report,

Justices said in a unanimous opinion that municipalities have the power under home rule to enact civil penalties for traffic signal light or speeding violations, provided the city does not alter statewide traffic regulations.

A ruling with some balance in it. The irony of course is that this centers around red light and speeding cameras. As important as the ruling was for cities like Akron and Cleveland it is likely to ruffle the feathers of citizens and state lawmakers alike.

Next up in the home rule show is the residency requirement. Are the rumors of residency requests untimely demise unfounded?