Just got this by e-mail from Cleveland City Council.....

 

STATEMENT FROM THE OFFICE OF THE COUNCIL:

 

On the Ohio Supreme Court ruling on residency

 

We believe that today’s decision by the Supreme Court of Ohio is flawed and has taken away the rights of the citizens of the City of Cleveland to vote on matters that are purely of local self-government.  At the most basic level, the Court has chosen to overrule an overwhelming 1982 vote of the people of our City.  In doing so, eliminated the people’s ability to make decisions of this nature that directly affect them.     

 

The court has obliterated home rule as we know it and as it was contemplated in the Ohio constitution,” said Councilman Kevin J. Kelley, Ward 16.  “This decision has given the legislature more authority than exists in the Ohio constitution.  In doing so, the Court has diminished the ability of local elected officials to govern.  Further, the Court has denied the right of local self-government to Cleveland residents.”

Having not read the opinion very carefully, but being familiar with the Home Rule Amendment, I think that Home Rule is the issue. The state constitution confers the home rule power upon incorporated municipalities. This, by definition, is a limitation on the General Assembly's ability to pass laws. Thus, the scope of a city's home rule power is critical to determining the state's ability to legislate for the "general welfare." Only once the initial constitutional hurdle has been cleared can we discuss the propriety of the General Assembly's conduct.

 

I am not familiar with Employment Boards, pension funds, or collective bargaining, but I am sure that those are also regulated by the federal government, which adds another level of complexity to the power relationships between governments. That said, residency does not, to my knowledge, implicate any federal laws. So we are left with the state's power relative to that of its cities. And the way we determine the scope of each political body relative to each other is through the Home Rule Amendment. The 2006 legislature may not have liked this, but that's the system our most recent constitutional convention created.

 

In most circumstances, you are correct.  Here, however, we are dealing with a law that was enacted under Art. II, Sec. 34, which empowers the General Assembly to pass laws "providing for the comfort, health, safety and general welfare of all employees" and FURTHER provides "no other provision of the constitution shall impair or limit this power."

 

The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that, due to the latter provision, the Home Rule Amendment to the Constituion can not impair or limit the GA's power to enact such laws.  Therefore, so long as the law was "properly" enacted under Art. II, Sec. 34, home rule analysis is irrelevant because any conflicting local ordinances are automitically invalidated.

 

Some time ago, the cities made the argument in another case (Rocky River) that the language "all employees" does not include municipal employees.  That proposition was rejected because municipal employees are one of the largest, if not the largest, identifiable group of employees in this state.

 

The cities realized their limitation in prosecuting this particular case given past precedent and that is why the issue was not whether the law in question could pass home-rule analysis, but rather whether such a law (prohibiting residency requirements) is the type of employment regulation contemplated by the powers invested in the GA by Art. II, Sec. 34.  Only if the first question is answered in the negative, do we turn to home rule analysis. 

 

Certain Appellate Courts held that the constitution's "broad grant of authority" to the GA only applied to "conditions of employment" and not "conditions for employment."  However, the flaw in that argument was that residency requirements, while possibly a condition "for" employment at the outset, certainly becomes a condition of continuing employment once hired.  Cleveland's residency requirement, for example, did not even require residency at the time of hiring, but only 6 months after the date of hire. 

 

I am interested to see whether this mass exodus the doom and gloomers at City Hall have predicted will actually occur.  Call me a glass half full kind of guy, but I believe the long-term effects of this decision will be positive.  The City's job applicant pool should be dramatically increased and employee morale will go up.  The employee hostitlity towards the city will hopefully diminish.

 

Cleveland and other cities are not without recourse though.  I do not see anything wrong with providing incentives for city workers to live within the city.  Civil service exam bonus points can be granted for city residents.  Hell, this law only applies to "employees", so what's wrong with requiring that all "applicants" be city residents.

 

Cities could also presumably offer a "bonus" payment program to workers who live in the city (e.g., first responders), provided that the unions go along with that during collective bargaining. 

Man, maybe Cleveland should secede from Ohio...!  I like Crain's article the best.

 

 

Ohio Supreme Court supports end to city worker residency rules

 

 

By JAY MILLER

 

11:57 am, June 10, 2009

 

The Ohio Supreme Court today in a 5-2 decision backed a state law passed in 2006 that said cities can’t require their employees to live in the community where they work.

 

Political leaders in large metropolitan cities, including Cleveland and Akron, that have these laws havefeared a ruling against them would lead to an exodus of police, fire and other employees to the suburbs. Cleveland Mayor Frank Jackson would not speculate on the impact of the ruling.

 

“At the end of the day, Cleveland will survive,” he told reporters gathered for an impromptu press conference in his office this afternoon. “It’s a sad day for the voters of Cleveland who believed in a system where their vote counts.”

 

 

 

More from Crains http://www.crainscleveland.com/article/20090610/FREE/906109949

Eh, this is a sad day not only in Cleveland, but in government.  As stated numerous times in this thread the citizens voted on this.  It was something we valued as a community and it has been taken away.  Unfortunately I think the people that wanted to leave probably left a long time ago, I doubt it is going to have a big impact on Cleveland.  I hate when people circumvent rules and laws like this one.  This case, to me, represents everything that is wrong in our country.

I'm a sick of hearing the poor argument that this about the constitutional right of where one can live.  The SC ruling has nothing to do about that--its all about whether the state legislature can pass regulations that trump city regulations in a home rule state. Even if it were about a constitutional right, it is not as if the restriction was imposed after they took their job. Additionally, I don't see where in the constitution that this is a protected right. Grendell is misusing terms and making this into an issue that it is not.

I'm a sick of hearing the poor argument that this about the constitutional right of where one can live. The SC ruling has nothing to do about that--its all about whether the state legislature can pass regulations that trump city regulations in a home rule state. Even if it were about a constitutional right, it is not as if the restriction was imposed after they took their job. Additionally, I don't see where in the constitution that this is a protected right. Grendell is misusing terms and making this into an issue that it is not.

 

Agreed that there was no "judicially recognized" constitutional right at play.  Some will argue otherwise (e.g. Grendell) but both the Ohio Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court have ruled in previous cases that their is no individual right to choose where to live AND demand employment at the same time.

 

As to the state's power to pass legislation that trumps local law in this state - yes, it absolutely does have that power under the Ohio Constitution, which was ratified BY THE PEOPLE of this state.  If the people don't like it, I hear all it takes to amend the constitution in the state of Ohio is a simple majority (see Gay marriage ban).  Take it to the voting booths and grant the cities unfettered control of law within their cities.

 

The decision issued today is LEGALLY correct.  Whether the legislation at issue was POLITICALLY correct is another question not capable of judicial review.  B!tch at Grendell and his allies all you want, but spare the Supreme Court justices who knew the decision would be unpopular to many but did the right thing nonetheless.

From the PD today:

 

 

Cleveland residency requirement's effect on city neighborhoods may be softened by poor housing market

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Michelle Jarboe

Plain Dealer Reporter

 

The depressed housing market could hamper city employees who want to leave Cleveland, softening the short-term blow from the Ohio Supreme Court's Wednesday ruling.

 

But a gradual migration of city workers might change the landscape of some Cleveland neighborhoods. And with roughly 8,000 city workers allowed to move beyond the city's boundaries, Cleveland potentially faces a slower rebound from the housing crisis.

 

 

 

More at Cleveland.com http://www.cleveland.com/business/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/business-12/1244709030152920.xml&coll=2

The question was: Can cities require workers to live within borders? There are 226 replies. Some for, some against. The answer, in a nut shell,,,,,,, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Period.

The question was: Can cities require workers to live within borders? There are 226 replies. Some for, some against. The answer, in a nut shell,,,,,,, NO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 

Period.

 

Easy there tiger.  The thread started in 2005.  At that time, the answer, in a nut shell was YES, the cities absolutely could require workers to live within their borders.  Although many workers tried, no court (whether state or federal) ever accepted the argument that some constitutional right was violated.  The US Supreme Court heard a case brought by Philadelphia employees and found no violation of the US Constitution.  The Ohio Supreme Court heard a case brought by Cincinnati employees and found no violation of the Ohio Constitution. 

 

Cleveland employees just a few years back challenged Cleveland's requirement under an equal protection argument in federal court due to the fact that the City granted exemptions to certain types of employees (teachers and high ranking officials like the Safety Director) but not to others (firefighters and police officers).  The US District Court dismissed the complaint and the 6th Circuit court of appeals affirmed that decision.

 

Now, however, the answer is no.  Why? - because the state tells them (the cities) they can't.  And, under the Ohio Constitution, can the state validly do so? - Yes.

It seems we agree... The answer to the question at hand is,,, NO!!!!!

I have a quick question regarding who this effects.  Do all city workers, i.e. the mayor, his staff, anybody on city council, city planners, so on and so forth fall under this rule as well?  Is this only pertaining to police and fire or are they just the loudest proponents.  In my opinion I can see police and fire not having to live in the city but for the mayor or anybody that is really affecting the laws, lifestyles, and future of this city it would seem a neccesity.  How can you be truly vested in the future of this city and than say it's not good enough for you to live in? 

^ Employees only.  Elected officials have to be residents.

It seems we agree... The answer to the question at hand is,,, NO!!!!!

 

I think that you are agreeing on different things that end up with the same result. Hts44121 presents the legal argument and you are presenting the non-legal argument. They are two very very different things.

I think everyone is assuming this law only pertains to police and firefighters around the state, mainly because the media has been pushing this issue in that light.  It is for ALL city employees around the state, not just Cleveland. 

 

Assuming Cleveland has a population of 450,000, roughly 1.7% of that total population is comprised of city employees.  If a portion of those employees move out and it is causing this much of a doom and gloom scenario, then Cleveland in my opinion , would already be beyond saving.  That being said, I do NOT think that Cleveland is in THAT much trouble.  A city can't think that a PORTION of less than 2% of the total population will bring a city to its knees.  Now is the time to truly see if the administration can make Cleveland a "city of choice" as stated by Mayor Jackson in the beginning of his term.

Cleveland residency requirement's strikedown could be final blow to home rule in Ohio cities

Posted by Henry J. Gomez/Plain Dealer Reporter June 15, 2009 09:00AM

Categories: Real Time News

 

 

If you listened closely last week, you could hear it.

 

Mixed with the sound of public workers slapping high-fives and police radio channels crackling with excitement was the whack of a gavel pounding another nail -- perhaps the final one -- into home rule's coffin.

 

 

 

More at Cleveland.com

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/06/cleveland_residency_requiremen_1.html

 

"Some wonder why justices proceeded without considering the merits of home rule. Judicial review, after all, is part of the job description."

 

Judicial review does not apply to articles of the state constitution, nor should it. 

 

But home rule is outdated and needs reform at the political level.  It was conceived at a time when Ohio metro areas were stand-alone cities, almost like city-states.  Now each one is 50 cities each, and each city gets to do things differently.  This is an extremely anti-business situation that has nothing to do with taxes, and could be fixed in a revenue-neutral manner. 

 

Cleveland's predatory lending restrictions were shot down on the grounds that it made sense for financial institutions to encounter only one set of laws when dealing in our state.  While I disagreed with the result of that case, the rationale behind it is sensible.  Italy and Germany did not become world powers until all their little fiefdoms merged into something coherent.  Home rule prevents that from happening in Ohio.         

Okay, so now cities can't require employees to live within city limits as a condition of employment. Cincinnati doesn't require that, they require employees to be in the County. that's now out, right? does that mean employees can live in Kentucky?

 

From what i understand, the rule in Cincinnati was that managers were required to live in the city limits. Could the city continue that requirement as a condition of the position, but not as a condition of employment? like, they wouldn't fire you if you moved, but may demote you?

The law applies to all employees.  If the managers are "employees" and not elected officials, then the City can no longer require residency and cannot take any adverse employment action against the employees who choose to live outside of the City's borders.

 

The state law does have an exception built into it for "emergency responders" (police, fire, EMT and, arguably, dispatch) which allows the cities to pass either a resolution, ordinance or initiative petition that would require those employees to live within the County or an adjacent County.  However, the exception is not worded all that well and some cities may claim that it is vague enough to allow them to require residency within the County.  Round 2 of litigation might be forthcoming on that issue.

For the big cities to survive they need to oursource most of their services and get rid of public workers. It would be much cheaper and provide better service.

For the big cities to survive they need to oursource most of their services and get rid of public workers. It would be much cheaper and provide better service.

 

I've read several posts by you and they all center around race and class.  What is up with that?

End of residency law takes tiny bite; about 300 Cleveland employees have left for suburbs

By Henry J. Gomez, The Plain Dealer

December 16, 2009, 4:05AM

 

Summary: This articles includes an analysis of from what neighborhoods about 300 city workers, mostly safety forces, have left.  As suspected, West Park and Old Brooklyn have felt the greatest impact. 

 

http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2009/12/end_of_residency_law_takes_tin.html

 

4% of the workforce... WOW, the City sure is emptying out.  The doom and gloom the City assured the court would happen is finally coming to fruition.  The mass exodus has begun!! 

 

Seriously though, I am just glad that I am not one of the taxpayers whose money went towards that totally speculative and highly irrelevant (for the purposes of the lawsuit) "economic impact" novel the City paid some expert to write for it.

 

Also, I would guess that 99% of that 4% probably already lived outside the City.  Did you ever really buy the story that they were shacking up on the third floor of their mom's home in Old Brooklyn?

Well my area didn't fare that bad.  I'm sure being in the Shaker SD helps.

That's 4% since June.  That's not even 6 months.

I have to agree with X - not saying that an exodus is inevitable but it's too soon to be able to make an accurate analysis.

Very true - the housing slump and bad economy limits people selling homes or wanting to take a loss on a home right now.  I would imagine that once the market begins to improve, you may see this number start to jump.

That's 4% since June.  That's not even 6 months.

 

Not quite.  That's 4% that have filed change of address forms with the City since June.  For most of those that make up that 4%, the moving trucks showed up long ago. 

While we can certainly hypothesize that that 4% was already long gone (and the article does as well), I haven't seen any blind surveying or other data collection that gives up a reasonable understanding of how that break downs ... whether it's 290 of the 300 or 150 of the 300. A couple thoughts, though. First, a number of the individuals who have left (although a small number, relative to the total number leaving) are in positions of department leadership. I think it's doubtful these people were living outside the city, given the chances for political fallout. Second, I think that the real estate market has indeed made it difficult to sell properties ... or to buy properties for that matter. Third, I think it's reasonable to assume that, as department cultures change and such a move becomes more socially acceptable or even expected, those numbers may change. Finally, the true population declines are based on the premise that the loss of those city employees may incentivize other residents to leave, particularly in the southwestern neighborhoods, where the concentration of public safety workers provides neighborhoods with brands as being ... well, safe.

^Remind them to shut the lights off when they leave.

 

Seriously folks, do you really want to force people to live in Cleveland... even if they agreed to do so 20 years ago?

 

And while I cannot exactly determine the true figures, it is not a hypothesis on my part that the submission of change of address forms since June were from many, many employees who moved out in 2006 or before.  It is an informed comment.

Time to ressurect this thread given the passage of Issue 1 which amends the City Charter to give preference points to City residents on civil service promotional exams.  Basically, the applicants who get these points will get the promotion.  The applicants who don't get the points will not be high enough on the eligibility list.  The City is really testing the limits of the law on this one and I don't think it will stand.  Potentially could be framed as retaliation for employees exercising their statutory rights.  JMO.

 

EDIT - Oh yeah..... 6 years after passage of the residency prohibition and Cleveland is still here.... even thriving some people would say.  Looks like the doom and gloomers were wrong again...