A Proposal for a residency incentive for public jobs

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
Lynn and I discuss Lakewood’s future quite a bit. I’m a proponent of a residency requirement for City Administration, safety forces and school system employees (Administrators and teachers). She is in agreement about safety forces and Planning Director but more on the fence about teachers. We were discussing the issue the other day and came up with a simple clear idea that would not go as far as making residency a requirement, but would take a step in the direction of getting more of these public employees living in Lakewood.

Here’s the idea:
When a position comes open, give residents of Lakewood first chance at the position. After some period of time, say 6 months, the position could be filled by someone that does not live in Lakewood. I would assume the Lakewood Observer would be willing to print and post a section identifying all such positions.

What do you think? Please don’t pooh pooh it right away. Give it a thought. What would we need to do to make it work?

I know the Mayor, City Council and the School Board read this forum. How about it Civil leaders? Could you give it a try?

[Bill Call]

I very reluctantly agree that a residency requirement should be considered.

During the last few months I have had the opportunity to talk to many city employees. I tried to explain the financial difficulties faced by Lakewood and other cities in Northeast Ohio. While the following comment was not expressed by the majority of the people I talked to more than one said variations of the following:

F*** Lakewood. I don't give a G** D*** about Lakewood. I don't live in Lakewood.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
Mr. Call, I agree with you on the residency requirement. But until all that's worked out, why don't we just try this incentive? It would start the ball rolling in the right direction. I don't believe it would impact labor contracts. Would it?

[Bill Call]

Your idea has merit. I have been told that Bay Village and other communities try to hirer residents before non-residents.

My suspicion is that it is a unspoken, unwritten policy.

[Stephen Calhoun]

Biggest challenge to this working is structural and consequences of its being so.

The labor market is just what it is at any point in time. f/e If the school needs 5 teachers then the labor market in Lakewood of resident teachers who might be interested in those jobs might look like this, (example for sake of thought problem):

4 unemployed teachers

8 teachers contracted elsewhere but -possibly- attracted to equivalent opportunity in own city of residence

Total Pool: 12

Let's say from this pool 8 are interested in the jobs. 4 are qualified and 2 get hired because they accept the offer.

You've added 2 residents to the teacher payroll. That's great. (The 3 other openings are filled by non-residents.

BUT, you can only go to this Pool with the same offer, in effect, once. With a different offer you can go back again.

But the next time around the labor market could be in worse shape.

***

The market for teachers at the level of job seekers is not very elastic given that the bottom line is a minimum credential/license + specialization, and it seems unlikely the local Labor Market would offer much choice.

The structural problem inherent in all residency requirements is the clear potential difference between quality of applicant and residency status. Nobody moves somewhere to wait for a local job to become available.

[Donald Farris]

Hi,
Mr. Calhoun, I'm not proposing a residency requirement. This is a residency incentive. If a Lakewood resident does not step up for the position in the alloted time then the position could be filled by someone that did not live in Lakewood.

Maybe if I wanted the position and didn't live in Lakewood, I would move to Lakewood and apply for the position.

[Stephen Calhoun]

Don, please call me Stephen.

I understood your pitch about incentives and took it further to generalize about the challenge implicit in both incentive and requirements.

If the labor market for teachers was robust enough within Lakewood then the incentive could well motivate a qualified teacher to move to Lakewood *if they knew they would then get the job*.

But, it is counterintuitive, (albeit not necessarily unlikely,) that a teacher would move to Lakewood simply because he or she hoped they would get the job.

But, I will hazard a guess that the labor market for teachers in Lakewood is not robust vis a vis this thought problem. (I may well be wrong about this.)

[dl meckes]

Stephen-

More bits of random yet not random information.

Praxis examinations that certify teachers are given 4-6 times a year. Teaching hopefuls as well as those who wish to add or change a subject must be certified.

During each of these examinations (at CSU) there are probably 15 candidates with Lakewood addresses. I only know the CSU numbers and not the numbers at different locations.

We have approximately 362 teachers in the Lakewood public school system.

According to the 2000 census, the bulk of our population is represented thusly:

25 – 34 years - 11,728 - 20.70%
35 – 44 years - 9,364 - 16.50%
45 – 54 years - 7,378 - 13.00%

One might guess that there is a potential pool of young teachers who would want to work in the new schools, who enjoy the Lakewood lifestyle and who may find that purchasing a home here is affordable, particularly if there are some potential incentives attached.

We have a lot of potential teachers who may be living in Lakewood either with their families or as renters.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Not to mention that we take another block from the Visionary Alignment and start to "draft" good neighbors. Teachers from New York, CT, Virginia, California, Washington.

When they cash out in these areas they come to Lakewood much more financially secure then they were.

Nothing but upsides.


.

[Jay Foran]

Seeking first to understand:

Would these newly hired Lakewood resident teachers be required to remain living in Lakewood? If so, for how long? What would be the consequences if they moved outside Lakewood?

[dl meckes]

Jay-

If you were to envision a hypothetical incentive program, what might you suggest?

[Jason Stewart]

Don, let's use your plan in a scenario:

One day, Finance Director, Vic Nogalo unexpectedly decides to resign from his or her position (I'm not picking on him, it's just the first official that popped into my head). The City advertises for the position, 5 Lakewood residents apply for the position. Four have no government accounting experience, the fifth has had his CPA license suspended for acts discreditable. Bottom line, none are qualified for the position. You would have the City wait 6 months to replace this key position with a qualified candidate. I'm sorry I just think this plan would be highly detrimental to the operations of the City or School system.

The City or School system should be (and I assume are) looking to hire the BEST candidates for the job, regardless of which City they call home.

During the last few months I have had the opportunity to talk to many city employees. I tried to explain the financial difficulties faced by Lakewood and other cities in Northeast Ohio. While the following comment was not expressed by the majority of the people I talked to more than one said variations of the following:

F*** Lakewood. I don't give a G** D*** about Lakewood. I don't live in Lakewood.

Bill, your comment would lead me to infer that you feel that resident employees of the City or school system do in fact share some greater connection or relationship with the City. I feel that may not be the case.

Again, I feel the local government entities, like ALL employers, should be looking to hire the most qualified, best suited employee for the position.

[Jerry Ritcey]

I don't live in Lakewood.

It's difficult to argue, though, that were such employees forced to live in Lakewood they would suddenly become better at their jobs.

As a way of illustrating why residency requirements are a bad idea, imagine if the company you worked for right now said you had to live in the same city the office was in to work there. Do you think that would help or hurt their business?

[Kenneth Warren]

Don:

I can't accept this proposal as sensible means to quality local government in an inner ring suburb at "the tipping point."

1. Always hire the best. Just because the person lives in Lakewood does not mean he/she is a quality hire.

2. Establish through the citizens' power of the purse and ballot box the civic demand side - All boards and politicians must apply the reality check that the American deal for labor is being restructured, negotiating hard with all unions so that powerful incentives will compel public sector employees to put their skin and the skins of kids and wives in the inner ring civic game. Period no excuses.

3. Repeat the message again and again: If you are benefiting from the most powerful economic force in the community - taxation - and enjoying pay and great bennies that come from living here, you need to work and live here. If you want to work here but don't want to live here, the bennies are not so great.

4. Hold the line in negotiations. In short the compensation pay/benefits mix needs to be restructured, not abruptly but gradually with goals. Any additional resources need to go into housing incentives, not salaries.

5. Seize the opportunity with many police retirements coming up, along with retirements from the school and library, it is imperative to raise the level of citizen political will to move the city in this direction.

To summarize, I know there are people who believe that we can create a city where public employees will want to live. It's a nice ideal. But time is of the essence. Grow Lakewood has determined we are at the tipping point.

Public employees, with demands that can no longer be satisfied given the taxation threshold, must realize the path to right the tipping with a constructive contribution to the necessary restructuring that will save the city. Public employees need to understand materially and ethically exactly the community norm their work and their lives are expected to support in an inner ring suburb at the tipping point.

Surgery is needed. Bill Call is right.

A secure job with bennies in 21st century NEO is a rare thing. It is unconscionable for citizens and politicians to sleep walk with public employees, whose skins have left the Lakewood civic game and real estate market, tipping an inner ring toward increasing levels of insecurity based on flawed assumptions of entitlements grown from the old industrial strength economy and the free choice prerogatives of market liberals.

To insist on entitlements and free choices that leave citizens on the tipping point will mean that public sector employment will be privatized.

The choices are rather clear. Now let's make them known.

Kenneth Warren

[Ed FitzGerald]

I recall attending a Lakewood candidate forum back in 1995. A question from the audience concerned the decreasing number of City Hall employees who were Lakewood residents and whether a residency requirement was therefore warranted. State Representative Madeline Cain, in her first campaign for mayor, replied that the solution was to craft incentives which would encourage employees to move into Lakewood.

Ken Warren is correct- the solution is known- and has been for years. What is missing is a sense of urgency which can overcome bureaucratic malaise.