Up until about four years ago, anybody who wanted to draw a paycheck from
the city of Springfield also had to live inside the city limits. In 2000, by
a 6-4 vote, City Council repealed that requirement for all but the highest-ranking
city employees.
Now, the council appears likely to confront that question again, thanks to an ordinance proposed by Ward 2 Alderman Frank McNeil. This ordinance, which was heard on first reading at this week’s council meeting, would reinstate the residency requirement for all city employees.
“To me, if people are being given jobs outside the city, then what benefit is it to live in the city? Living in the city should provide you with some kind of advantage,” McNeil says.
If the ordinance proceeds through committee, it could come up for a vote as soon as Oct. 19. The vote could again be close, as the four aldermen who supported residency in 2000 are still on the council. They are McNeil, Ward 4 Alderman Chuck Redpath, Ward 8 Alderman Irv Smith, and Ward 9 Alderman Tom Selinger.
Among the three new aldermen, the votes are split.
Ward 1’s Frank Edwards says he will not support a residency requirement. “Since we’ve already done that, to allow city employees to move out, I think it would just open a can of worms,” he says.
Ward 5’s Joe Bartolomucci says he’s inclined to support the residency requirement. “I’m kind of leaning towards if you want to be employed at the city of Springfield, that being a resident is a good idea,” Bartolomucci says.
The other freshman alderman, Ward 6’s Mark Mahoney, was unavailable for comment.
A tie would put Mayor Tim Davlin in the position of casting the deciding vote, and he is waiting to see what final form the ordinance will take. Echoing comments he made throughout his campaign, Davlin says he would never “mess with the biggest investment of a person’s life” by supporting a measure that would require current employees who live outside the city limits to relocate.
However, if presented with an ordinance that names a date in the future, Davlin says he may support it. “I will consider that,” he says. “I will also take into account that I have to deal with union contracts.”
The city’s unionized personnel have already warned that any residency requirement would trigger mandatory collective bargaining. On Monday, the Policemen’s Benevolent and Protective Agency Unit 5 hand-delivered to the mayor and council members a “demand to bargain in good faith over any changes considered in the current residency format.”
Tom Roate, president of Firefighters Local No. 37, says his union plans to send a similar message.
“I definitely respect Alderman McNeil and his support for his ward, but I don’t think they could show any degradation of the work force since they’ve done away with residency rule,” Roate says.
Citing mutual aid agreements between the Springfield Fire Department and other municipalities, Roate says a residency requirement would leave firefighters in an odd position.
“We could risk our lives there, but we can’t live there? That doesn’t make sense,” he says.
Bartolomucci, though, is unmoved by Roate’s logic. “That doesn’t tug at my heartstrings,” he says.
This article appears in Oct 7-13, 2004.
