Until recently, 125 cities and 13 villages had the right to determine that residents that worked for them had to meet certain residency requirements. Thanks to some of our local Ohio Representatives and Governor Taft, that is about to change. I believe a city or a village should be able to set residency requirements for those that they hire.
If you want to read the text of the bill it can be found Here:
In the Ohio House of Representatives this bill was voted on January 18th of this year.
The yeas and nays were taken and resulted - yeas 68, nays 28 (Area representatives are in italics).
Those voting for:
Aslanides, Barrett, Blasdel, Blessing, Boccieri, Book, Brinkman, Brown, Calvert, Carano, Cassell, Chandler, Coley, Collier, Core, DeGeeter, DeWine, Distel, Dolan, Domenick, Driehaus, Evans D., Faber, Fende, Flowers, Garrison, Gibbs, Gilb, Hagan, Hartnett, Harwood, Healy, Hood, Hughes, Kilbane, Law, McGregor J., McGregor R., Miller, Mitchell, Oelslager, Patton T., Perry, Peterson, Raga, Redfern, Reidelbach, Reinhard, Sayre, Schaffer, Schlichter, Schneider, Seitz, Smith G., Stewart D. ,Stewart J. ,Taylor, Trakas, Uecker ,Wagoner, Walcher, Webster, Widener, Williams ,Wolpert, Woodard, Yuko, Husted-68
Those voting against:
Allen, Beatty, Buehrer, Carmichael, Daniels, DeBose, Evans C., Fessler, Hoops, Key, Koziura, Latta, Martin, Mason, Otterman, Patton S., Raussen, Setzer, Skindell, Smith S., Strahorn, Sykes, Ujvagi ,Wagner, White, Widowfield, Willamowski, Yates-28.
In the Ohio Senate, this bill was voted on June 21, 2005. The yeas and nays were taken and resulted - yeas 19, nays 13, as follows:
Those for:
Austria, Brady, Carey, Cates, Coughlin, Dann, Fedor, Grendell, Hottinger, Jacobson, Jordan, Mumper, Niehaus, Padgett, Prentiss, Schuring, Wachtmann, Wilson, Harris-19.
Those against:
Amstutz, Armbruster, Clancy, Fingerhut, Gardner, Goodman, Hagan, Mallory, Miller, Roberts, Schuler, Spada, Zurz-13
The Toledo Blade article that is linked in the title line gives you some additional information. Both Mayor Finkbeiner and Frank Szollosi are among those who do not support this, yet it appears it is too late. Governor Taft signed the bill yesterday and barring a sucessful legal challenge it will go into affect in 90 days.
I can't help wondering why this wasn't made an issue and fought harder before the bill passed the House. Given it was passed by the Senate back in June, there was ample time to make this a public issue and try to prevent it then. This is also a good time to once again note that the Ohio Congress makes it very difficult to get voting roll information on bills, and why HB 323 is so important. Take this bill, 82, as an example. It was buried within a 440 page Ohio Senate Journal for that day.
When it comes to those with higher political aims? I'd point out that the sponsor of this bill, Republican Sen. Tim Grendell, is running for Attorney General and Senator Marc Dann who also has eyes on the AG spot voted yes on this bill. Eric Fingerhut, a Democratic candidate for Govenor, voted against this bill. Ohio Rep. Chris Redfern, the new head of the Ohio Democratic Party voted for this bill. Positions worth remembering when they come to tell you how important our area is to them.
Keeping Your Belongings Safe Through Storms
-
Years ago almost every house was built with some sort of shutter, whether
designed as storm shutters or for security. Granted, most windows during
those d...
13 years ago
10 comments:
To add to my Toledo Talk comments, I think Taft should be doing anything else for the year. In fact, I think I would support a 11 month paid vacation.
I was surprised Mark Wagoner voted for it.
I ment Taft SHOULDN'T be doing anything for the rest of the year.
To add about Mark Wagoner, I think he is a sharp guy and we need more Republicans like him. I can understand his rationale for voting yes, but I am disappointed.
I believe that people who work for a municipality should owe the city from which they draw a check their residence.
Want to live in the suburbs? Be my guest - just don't take my tax dollars with you.
Besides - I thought that Ohio was a "home rule" state. It sounds like the state is deciding that municipalities really are not free to make their own personnel decisions.
I am disappointed in Chris Redfern as well, especially since he came up here and threw his two cents in on the Council Presidency issue. Same with Marc Dann, I'm not sure if this issue alone would be enough for me to not support him but it is enough for me to want to discover how his primary opponent feels about this. Also to discover how Betty Montgomery feels on this issue is another goal I've set for myself. As Mike pointed out, if we are "Home Rule" then who no longer supports that concept? That to me is a critical issue.
Another perspective:
As the initial intent was to keep workers (especially public safety workers) close for faster recall or call-out overtime response, the local highway systems have long put that argument to rest.
The "new" intent was to keep taxpayer monies within the borders of the employers (and taxpayer's) realm.
There are however legetimate reasons (especially for public safety forces) to live elsewhere, not the least of which is freedom of choice, not exactly a trivial reason, last time I checked...
Freedom of choice also means no one is required to take employment if they don't like the conditions placed on employment. If a city or village found they were having difficulty finding quality candidates willing to live within the city they were working for? It would be an issue, however given the current waiver scenario? To my way of thinking there was more than enough freedom of choice.
Imagine what would happen if a Ford exec drove a Honda....
:-)
Shame On All of those who wish to take the freedoms away from public safety workers. You have all turned your back on us. And to think that all governments think about are THEIR tax dollars, they dont think about the inner city school problems their children faces, family issues we all face, helping our aging families. And just the down right freedom of choice for a MAYBE we'll be recalled. Put yourself in the shoes of the public safety worker, the long nights, the tragic scenes. You'd wanna get away also, that what we all hope for. Shame on all you wishing to take this new found freedom away. If the government really cared they'd staff these organizations properly and no really on one that just wishes to be with his/her family. Think about it!!!!!!!
Jim, if you go on a job interview to work for a company and they tell you that as a condition of your employment you have to live within a 5 mile radius because you will be on call and you take the job knowing that's a condition how is that something any of us should be ashamed of?
If a company has the right to do that than a city or a village does as well. Especially if tax payers of that area have determined that is what they want. No one forces a person to take a job under those conditions. There is a waiver system in almost all of the places that have residency requirements. The difference here is you seem to believe the State should be able to trump the wishes of local voters on an issue that the State provides very little funding for. The majority of funding for a city budget does not come from the state.
I don't believe the State should have the power to eliminate Home Rule issues such as this one. If the City were having problems finding quality employees who refused to follow the residency requirement the natural course of the market would make this necessary to change. If enough tax payers decided this wasn't something they wanted to support any longer? There are ways it could be changed.
But what you dont understand is that things change, family matters, and should matter most. I believe in sharing the driving distance w/ my spouse, where my kids goto school, helping my extended family whenever possible, this list could be endless, but that doesnt effect how I do my job, nor does it mean I should make a career change, nor lose how I support my family. Furthermore, home rule doesnt mean lose civil libertys. Governments were abusing the system and with that its no longer a democacy. Meaning, this wasnt an issue voted upon by the people of the city or township this was put into place by politicians with one goal in mind, to get money out of the pocket of the voter in one way shape or form, even if its coming back out of the pockets of their very own employees. If you worked in a service like this you might just understand but until you walk a mile..... ....well you get the point. What I do know is that this is a lifesaver for my family and my blood pressure. You just have no idea how much the city I work for just takes and takes from their employees, now its about time that the States stands up for the working employee of this government system. They are finally trying to correct the mistake they made. I got a statement like that from my state rep. But what more can be said, I think we will continue to agree to disagree. I still have freedom to do that...;) For now, until my city makes an ordinance to change that! Thanks again for the responce though. Jim C.
Jim, I understand where you are coming from, I think where we differ is if a City or Village does this than it should be changed by them. Not the state determining that a local election issue is now no longer valid.
Your points are why many cities and villages have decided to not have residency requirements.
While I understand why cities do have residency requirements I also understand things change which is why most of them have a waiver program. My main beef with this is not the actual residency requirement but that the State did this against the wishes of that many cities and villages.
As for agreeing to disagree? Always works for me. I know not everyone is going to agree with me and I appreciate you coming back to recomment. I hope you continue to visit and comment because discussion is important, especially when we don't agree, there is always some common ground issues that we might end up agreeing on.
Post a Comment