A residency requirement isn’t by definition a bad thing.
Requiring employees who serve a community to reside in that community shows both employer and employee have a commitment. If a city is good enough for a worker to take a job there, the city also ought to be good enough for that employee to live in.
The ease of commuting, meanwhile, leaves potential employees dozens of options about where to live. Additionally -- although it does not apply in the case we’re discussing here – remote work capabilities mean an employee doesn’t necessarily have to even live in the same time zone or country as their employer.
Five years ago, Decatur enacted a residency recommendation or requirement. Resistance to the idea among employees combined with a reluctance on the part of the police union to agree to the plan and a dearth of job candidates – presumably because of the residency requirement – combined to lead the Decatur City Council to pull back on the plan.
People are also reading…
The logic in withdrawing the requirement is as sound as the logic implementing it. City employees living in the city limits makes sense. But if that requirement is a breaking point for applicants, and applicants are few, removing the requirement is the way to go. Taking steps to encourage workers to live in the city and taking steps to make the city more attractive for workers (as well as others) are solid, realistic goals and expectations.
As Mayor Julie Moore Wolfe pointed out at this week’s council meeting, Decatur is struggling to fill positions in the public and private sectors. Help wanted signs are more common than not at all businesses. Some are offering signing bonuses or other novel incentives.
One COVID-related phenomenon has been workers reevaluating what they want from work, what will satisfy employers as well as employees. That’s requiring out-of-the-box thinking, as councilman Ed Culp said during the meeting.
Those currently in law enforcement and those considering the field have plenty of outside factors to consider as well. Law enforcement methods are under a societal microscope. “Defunding” police may or may not be a potential or impending practice. But even the thought simply being discussed is a discouraging prospect for law enforcement workers to ponder. Changes in state law about enforcement methods and bail requirements have led some long-time employees to step back from the field.
Whether they’re leaving because of the changes or if they’re just ready to go and the changes are providing a convenient excuse is immaterial. The fact is veteran police officers are leaving their jobs, and cities all over the country are no different than Decatur – people are needed to fill those positions.
Calling the reversal on residency requirements a disappointment is accurate. But it also reflects the world in which we live. If requirements aren’t working, they need to be reevaluated. We hope the decision helps Decatur fill positions in severe need of being filled.