Cars and Parts Springfield Swap Meet
Carroll Commencement
Fairborn commencement
Ellen Belcher is the Dayton Daily News opinion pages editor. She writes about state government, education, the environment, higher education and all things Dayton.
Martin Gottlieb is an editorial writer and columnist for the Dayton Daily News opinion pages. He focuses on the political process itself and does such national issues as war, the economy, taxes and Social Security, as well as a hodge-podge of local and state issues.Home > Blogs > A Matter of Opinion > Archives > 2009 > June > 29 > Entry
Guest column: Where city employees live really does matter
Paul Woodie, a former assistant city manager in Dayton, is a lifelong Dayton resident.
Much of the debate about requiring city employees to live in Dayton has centered on urban myths.
Myth No. 1: Everyone has a constitutional right to live where he or she wants.
Residency was the rule from 1805 to the 1950s and from 1971 to 2009. Have city employees been denied their constitutional rights for 200 years, or has the meaning of civil service changed?
Why can’t state employees live in Covington or Richmond? Why is Jon Husted required to live in Kettering?
In the end, we all live where our chosen work requires us.
Myth: If Dayton had better schools and neighborhoods, its employees would choose to live in the city.
By 1971, after a 20-year residency hiatus, a majority of city employees did not live in the city. Were Dayton neighborhoods that bad in the 1950s and ’60s?
Myth: A majority of city employees will continue to live in the city.
In just 10 years, a majority of employees will live outside the city even if every current employee stays put. City residents constitute 20 percent of the region’s work force. All things being equal, 80 percent of those taking and passing the civil service exam will not be residents. With a 7 percent annual turnover in personnel, it is merely a matter of math and time.
Myth: It is an insult to assume that nonresident employees would not be professional in the performance of their job.
The concern is not about nonfeasance, but about world views. Why do we care who is appointed to the Supreme Court so long as the nominees are qualified judges of good will? Because something more than skill and good will may color their decisions, like empathy and life choices.
Is it likely that a planner who chooses to live on a farm outside Eaton will have the same intuitive skills to address urban life in Five Oaks as a planner living in McPhersontown? Would a parks supervisor who lives in Mason be as willing to attend neighborhood night meetings as an employee who lives in Belmont, or will this become another union grievance?
Of course, there will be employees who will rise above it all, but that will not be the general rule. If a waitress is rude, I simply go to another restaurant, but city employees have important control over the quality of life of my neighborhood.
Myth: The mayor and the city commission run the city, so it shouldn’t matter where city employees live.
This is the biggest myth and the one that strikes at the heart of the problem. For the first time in history, the CEO of the city will not have to live in the city. Does it matter? Think NCR’s Bill Nuti.
Contrary to popular belief, the CEO is not the mayor. The mayor hires and fires no one, does not control the budget, and cannot negotiate financial incentives for either NCR or Joe the Plumber.
The mayor’s role is to form a consensus among the five commissioners and represent the city to state and federal officials. This role has merit and requires considerable political skill, but the position doesn’t have the power many think it does.
Under Dayton’s current form of government, policymaking and the quality of city services are decided by bureaucrats. Under this new law, neither the police chief, who decides how I am protected from crime, nor the city attorney, who decides if a law dealing with drug houses is worth defending, are required to even live in Montgomery County.
The city manager form of government worked well when Dayton was primarily a utility service provider, and there were few social and economic issues to navigate. It worked well when employees grew up and lived in the city and had credibility in a crisis. In the near future, those who have never lived, and will never live, in the city and who may be uncomfortable in most neighborhoods will decide our fate.
In the early ’70s, before residency, several tax issues failed, forcing dramatic city service cuts. Opinion surveys indicated citizens believed employees were unresponsive and unconcerned. Restoration of the residency rule, performance budgeting and the creation of priority boards were the pillars of reform that led to tax levies passing. Now all the pillars are cracked. We need to build new ones.
Dayton is the last major city in Ohio with a city manager form of government. Cincinnati and Toledo have abandoned it for a strong mayor. It is time for us to take a hard look at the efficacy of our form of government.
Some have suggested metro government as the answer. But the pathway to regionalism begins in the suburbs, not Dayton. Unfortunately, the cocktail conversation always ends when the vodka runs out.
In the meantime, if we can’t have a government of the people, at least let us have a government by and for the people.
Permalink | Comments (20) | Post your comment | Categories: City of Dayton, Guest Columns, Local History
Tweet
Comments
By Buckeye
June 29, 2009 3:26 PM | Link to this
Make the city a place firefighters and police officers want to live in and they will. Right now, they are heading for the hills… North, East, and South. If you know any City of Dayton firefighters, ask them their opinion. A LOT of them are planning to move out of the city limits. I hope for the best for Dayton, but am regrettably not optimistic.
By Rob
June 29, 2009 4:07 PM | Link to this
Shoot, most of the Cops, Firefighters, and other sundry city employees that I know all live in Forest Ridge. A good area that’s “Not Dayton”… Still, the law is the law, if you want workers to be city residents, pay them a city stipend. Otherwise, let it drop.
By Davidss2
June 29, 2009 5:47 PM | Link to this
Nice verbage but nonsense it is. I suppose that using EXACTLY the same logic, someone in FAirborn doesn’t want a city manager or other bureaucrat to live in Dayton, because they wouldn’t be able to properly understand how Fairborn needs to be managed since they have limited life experience because they live in Dayton. I propose that every political entity around the area pass a resolution to not employ anyone living in the city of Dayton. Perhaps other businesses also should do the same since those employees won’t be able to understand the services or treatment customers in New lebanon or Mason at Kings Island would need. ====Doesn’t that sound silly? Just as silly as the illfound logic in support of residency.
By FormerBelmont
June 29, 2009 5:59 PM | Link to this
My wife and I raised two children in Belmont on Kenmore Ave. I liked the people there and many were city workers. They provided stability in more ways than one. Kids went to Immaculate - it was better than DPS. DPS was a non starter for us, refused to even consider it under any circumstances. The high cost of catholic high school and the awful condition of the DPS left no choice but to sell and leave, which we did. Without the residency rule it will hurt the city. But the schools are driving people out of the city. The school board, not the city commission and mayor, are behind the real decline in the city. The school board is not held accountable for this decline and they should be. A weak school system drives away families that have options and weakens the entire community. The leadership situation with the current mayor is not good. The worst part is that many have given up on the schools and I can understand why. Mr. Woodie is right that not having the residency rule is not in the best interest of the city and he may also be right about the need to give the city structure where a strong leader could have a chance to make a difference. Regionalism will not work now because there is no respect for the mayor, a situation she created. She is an accidental mayor at best and benefits from a party political system that will keep her there at the expense of the community she is supposed to serve. I don’t have a solution. Not sure I can fully describe the problem but the school board is killing Dayton in so many ways - they should be indicted for murder. Maybe the start to a solution would be to break the Dayton school system up into smaller more manageable districts with local school boards from each district. Create some new pillars there. I don’t know the solutions but I bet a smart guy like Paul Woodie could help figure it out. Maybe they could find a way to hire him back.
By CityResident
June 29, 2009 11:44 PM | Link to this
I’ve already sold and moving to somewhere I don’t have to see the crook I just put in, driving past my house and giving me the thousand yard stare…
By Joe
June 30, 2009 12:46 AM | Link to this
Mr. Woodie, is this the best you can do? Like the DDN editorial before, you cite hardly any strong, compelling reasons why residency is a unique BENEFIT to the city. If a planner who chooses to live on a farm outside Eaton does a lousy job, then perhaps you simply hired the wrong person. Deal with him like you’d deal with the McPhersontown employee who does a lousy job. Are you unable to discipline a non-resident? A Richmond or Covington resident can make just as good a State employee as one living in Ohio. If they aren’t good employees, like some Ohio employees can be, then “deal with it” the same way you would with those Ohio employees. What’s the difference? Yeah, it may look pretty damned bad that the Mayor lives out of town, but on the flip side it’s also possible that the out-of-town Mayor may be the best thing that ever happened to the city and that “outsider” would then look pretty good. Right? “For the first time in history, the CEO of the city will not have to live in the city. Does it matter? Think NCR’s Bill Nuti.” There is, of course, a point where not living close enough can become cumbersome. Being in the office and available at odd hours is a given and known at the point of being hired. If you can’t make it to the office every day, you live too far away and you should be let go. All things being equal, hire the closer of the candidates. It’s up to those doing the hiring to make the right decisions about who they hire. Is that not possible any more? Saying that, well, residency existed for 200 years doesn’t make residency right for those 200 years, or even now. Incidentally, we don’t have to rely on horses to get to work any longer, either, which may have been a reason for residency those many years ago, don’t you think? Yes, in the end, we all live where our chosen work requires us, although I would say necessitates not “requires”. Now, all are able to choose the house, the street, the neighborhood AND the city in which they live. Mr. Woodie, I’m just not sure what you’re afraid of. You don’t offer much to sway me.
By Paul
June 30, 2009 10:15 AM | Link to this
Some of the points made on here are worth noting and are decent arguments against the value of residency. However, some miss the point or are factually incorrect. State employees are required to be citizens of the state of Ohio. You can only be a citizen by living in the jurisdiction. This is not really a debatable point. Elected officials must reside in the district they serve everywhere in the U.S. It is a basic tenet of representative democracy. Dayton is not the only city with a residency law, Kettering has one for all department heads, and most suburban cities require the City Manager to live in the community. Most major cities in the nation have some form of residency even prosperous cities. All these cities can not be crazy. The value of residency can be debated but it is not on its face absurd. Most city employees are hired by a written exam and nothing more. Dayton is the only city in Ohio with the “rule of one” meaning that managers have little choice in who works for them or who gets a promotion. Factors such as proximity to worksite or ability to work in a diverse environment are either not permissible measures for hiring or are subject to legal challenge. These rules are in the Charter and not changeable by either the City Manager or City Commission. A planner can not be easily dismissed for being clueless about how to address issues in an urban neighborhood. Employees have civil service protection and can effectively be dismissed only for clear actions of failing to work. Quality of work is not easily measured. A supervisor’s judgement to dismiss requires full documentation, extensive corrective counseling,and, in the end, is subject to review by a civil service board and the courts. Most supervisors are exhausted and beat up if they attempt it. The point of the article was that residency was valuable to the City for many reasons, however it is no longer a pillar we can count on. It is time to move on and to create a better governance structure for the people of Dayton. We need to look at what other cities have been doing that may work better. We must always hold to the basic tenet of democracy that the best government is that which is of, and by, and for the people. Some of the bloggers have suggested that this tenet is not important for Dayton. I am sure you can understand that as a lifelong resident of Dayton, I find this suggestion not worthy of comment.
By Jim
June 30, 2009 11:41 AM | Link to this
Now that city workers don’t have to live in Dayton, perhaps the city could contract out many city services, like many suburbs do. It might save the city money and result in more responsive service.
By Jim
June 30, 2009 11:48 AM | Link to this
Revise the city charter to empower the mayor; elect city commissioners by district rather than city-wide; include commission seats for representatives of inner-ring suburbs, if they wish to participate. Allow inner-ring suburbs to merge with Dayton but allow them to maintain their own school systems; and, yes, break up the DPS into two or more smaller districts. That’s a start for greater Dayton revival in the context of regionalism.
By resident
June 30, 2009 12:05 PM | Link to this
Hmmm…Maybe the city could make everyone part time permanent and keep the residency,Then all the employees could’nt afford there mortgages/livingexpenses(we all know there is no vacant house issues) and will have to go outside the city for part time work also.WoW best of both worlds
By Happy in Huber
June 30, 2009 1:51 PM | Link to this
Hey Mr.Woodie, The reason that the City of Dayton is an armpit is because of the so called “leaders” like you who did a rotten job of running this city. I only hope that the city residents get rid of the rotten leadership it has now. The Mayor and the commision is asleep at the wheel while business are driving away.
By flipper
June 30, 2009 4:25 PM | Link to this
It’s all about the taxes, man.
By DaytonResident
June 30, 2009 8:25 PM | Link to this
I agree that it doesn’t (or shouldn’t) matter where you live relative to how well, or effective, you do your job. I do believe the entire civil service process and the protections it affords employees need to be reformed. If someone is not doing their job they should be replaced with someone that will….period. If the system won’t allow that, then change the system. One could argue that the City may now have a pool of better, more qualified applicants to choose from now that people won’t be forced to live where they don’t want to in order to get a job. That is a good thing. To say they won’t care as much is ridiculous. And if you find that they don’t, then replace them with someone who will. I personally work for an area suburban community and live in the City of Dayton. I like it here. Yea, there are issues you have to deal with, but from what I’ve seen in the burbs, they issues are similar. Most of you suburban folks watch the news and get scared to even come into the city….it’s kinda sad really. I’ll admit, there are areas that are pretty rough, but a majority of the City is “livable”. I’ve lived here for nearly ten years without one incident that I would contribute to living in the City of Dayton. I know people who live in Beavercreek and Centerville that have had to deal with A LOT more than I have. It’s not for everyone, but I like living in the city.
By truth
June 30, 2009 10:10 PM | Link to this
Instead of criticizing the employees that want a better life for themselves and their families, why don’t you look at the reasons for why they don’t want to live in the city. They can now rely on quality public education from the suburbs. They can pay lower taxes and receive better services. They can live somewhere where there are educated and experienced elected officials, that have a clue on how to run a city or township government. They don’t have to worry about the scrub they just arrested living across the street from them. They don’t have to drive away from their city for basic services. The list can go on and on. As a government employee, I provide the same quality service for the community I work in, that I would if I worked where I live. I CHOOSE not to live where I work because of obvious reasons. Face it. Dayton’s crime is fairly isolated. Being from the suburbs, I know downtown is one of the safer areas, and I really hope that development takes off for the sake of the region. However, residency doesn’t breed quality work or a sense of ownership. Having quality employees that are happy in their personal lives, breeds quality work. You aren’t going to see a decline in police or fire service. You aren’t going to see less dedicated streets or parks and rec employees. Don’t piggyback your excuses off of public servants that want to choose where to live. If you ELECTED officials do your job properly, Dayton will be a place where employees and non-employees alike will WANT to live and not be FORCED to live.
By gene
July 1, 2009 12:25 AM | Link to this
Were it not for the strict censorship laws in the U. S. (which the DDN strictly adheres to)we could all state the REAL reason no one wants to live in Dayton.
By Vic
July 1, 2009 10:25 AM | Link to this
A city employee by definition works to improve the lives of those who live in the city. If that employee is not subject to the results of his or her failures I could not consider them dedicated enough to receive the tax dollars I and the others who live in the city pay them. If I owned a McDonalds I would not let anyone work for me who would not eat the food. Bottom-line, credibility, dedication, and the community spirit that drives them cannot come from afar. If you want to work for the people of Dayton its better you be one of them.
By davidss2
July 1, 2009 11:45 AM | Link to this
Vic has a very good theory: don’t employ anyone who doesn’t live in your city. I’m going to check with the city council where I live to be sure we don’t employ anyone from outside out fine city limits. I suspect quite a few Dayton residents will be losing jobs because of that same attitude at their workplace, be it Kohls, Wendys, Lowes, Home Depot, etc. If they aren’t living in the same political division where they work, they aren’t dedicated. WRONG.——————That means that Dayton should only look for city managers who live within. Or mayors and city council who actually live within the city. And they want all the baseball players at Fifth third field to be residents of the city. And they want all the RTA drivers to be residents; of course only RTA bus drivers who live in my city can drive RTA buses through my city. ———————That attitude won’t work any more than tariffs on important goods now will solve the manufacturing jobs dilema in our country.
By mlh
July 1, 2009 1:34 PM | Link to this
I respect and agree with many of Mr. Woodie’s points. I am stunned at the vivacity of those who find a residency requirement repulsive. I worked for the city in the 70s and followed the requirement. I moved into the private sector in the 80s, maintained my city residency and drove 20 minutes into the suburbs to work. I only cared about the inability of the suburb to provide adequate traffic control so I could pass through efficiently. (Where was Austin Rd then?) I choose the city and resent those who have abandoned her out of fear and hate. To those who find the suburbs safer and prettier, the problems which you have run away from will only follow you unless you are part of the solution. Help us all and think regionally. The empty concrete parking lots of abandoned shopping areas are an early indication of the loss of insightful community planning and consideration of the health of the city center by those who deny her importance.
By Vic
July 1, 2009 4:41 PM | Link to this
Davidss2, It is not a theory it was the law here in Dayton for city employees and is the law for city employees in many parts of the country. You are making a none-relatable analogy by saying private business should only hire from local residence when we are talking about city government workers. Additionally, the mayor and city commissioners ARE required to live in Dayton, and all the past city managers may not have lived in Dayton before being hired, but moved to the city once they started working. RTA bus drivers, as city employees, were required to live in the city under the previous policy and for the Dragon’s ball-players see my comments about your private business analogy. If you were educated in the unnamed town you say you live in I suggest you go back to school to study logic, and argument!!!!!
By EnviniloG
March 26, 2011 6:43 PM | Link to this
Free Hentai Movies - hentaiblog.org