Dec. 12, 2006
 
CITY COUNCIL: Mayor Foresees Court Challenge after Council Narrowly Votes to Not Extend Proof of Residency Deadline
 
By Tony Rutherford
Huntington News Network Writer
 
Huntington, WV (HNN) -- Faced with a choice of voting for an allegedly improper extension for city employees to comply with proof of city residency, Huntington City Council took a firm, but risky position, of voting 6-5 in favor of not extending Friday’s deadline for employees to provide proof they live inside the city limits.
 
According to the City Charter, employees hired by the City of Huntington after July 1, 2002, must be residents of the city. However, all have within 90 days of their hiring provided an affidavit stating they are city residents.
 
The imponderable mission of the governing body balance the proof deadline requirement with public safety and city services crises if the numbers of employees in the police, fire and street departments do not rise. .” Based on totals provided at the meeting, the city has not received updated proof of residency for 16 police officers, 18 firefighters, and 17 members of the street department.
 
After the meeting, Mayor David Felinton briefly discussed his viewpoint on the issue.
 
HNN: Do you see any alternative to the firings on Friday?
 
MAYOR: It will probably be Monday morning . There’s no extension. The lack of response [by employee’s to provide proof of residency ] legally has to be seen as a proof of non-residency and thus I’m forced to terminate those who do not comply… I just hope the numbers of people who brought in compliance come up as we get closer to the deadline.
 
HNN: Do you see a court challenge if you have to start terminating people?
 
MAYOR: Sure, but I want to clarify that we have been fully in compliance with the ordinance . The affidavit itself is proof of residency. Upon information and belief that somebody may be out of compliance, we do investigate. What I see this, as the resolution introduced at the prior meeting by Mr. Ritter is being asked to investigate everybody and go back to 2002. It’s going a little bit above and beyond what the ordinance requires. From the [certified] letters we sent out, its going a little bit beyond the resolution by asking for multiple forms of ID. People need to be compliant and that’s the bottom line. I don’t think everybody was being reasonable on council.
 
We just discussed this at the finance committee, there are people who live in apartments that makes it the responsibility of the landlord to pay the municipal and refuse fees. How can somebody give a cancelled check for the refuse fees or the user fees?
 
HNN: Or an internet payment receipt?
 
MAYOR: Exactly, even so, there are always ways of getting around it. How much can we in the city of Huntington come up with a foolproof way when they have issues with it in some of the larger cities in the country. They probably have departments dedicated to issues like this. And, they still have…not for manpower reasons, what is residency? There’s always going to be a loophole.
 
Following lively debate, the bottom line squarely fell on council that twice citizens have voted to require city residency. Thus, voting to provide more time to comply could be viewed as a city charter violation. If the leniency violates the charter, then council members would violate their oath of office to uphold the ordinances and charter of the city. In fact, advocate and former council member Tom McCalister demanded that council chair Mary Neely immediately declare the five dissenters seats vacant based on their vote.
 
But, the termination of so many experienced and essential city employees in mass will lead to increased crime, slower response times for emergencies, and garbage left sitting beyond the normal times of pick up.
 
One individual indicated that the governor could order state troopers into the city. Another person renewed his call for licensing “bounty hunters” to pick up those wanted on outstanding warrants.
 
During the early portion of the meeting, Dr. Calvin Kent, after a vote to suspend the rules, offered a draft of an ordinance that would have allowed more flexibility regarding terminations. Since the 90 day extension was voted down, Kent did not bring his draft back to the table.
 
While City Attorney Scott McClure declined to speculate on legal action, Carl Easton, who represents the International Association of Fire Fighters local, indicated after the lengthy council meeting that “it’s quite obvious there’s going to be some kind of legal challenge,” adding that the current impasse “almost forces city employees” into a court challenge.
 
Earlier, Easton attempted to dissuade members of council from a hasty, strict interpretation of the compliance mandate. He explained that the adopted resolution was simply for the Mayor “to provide council a report” and brought forward circumstances concerning proof documents.
 
Council member Scott Casserta stressed that historically the city has often waited up to five years before attempting to collect delinquent fees. He favored the resolution as granting a 90 day extension for the mayor to perform an administrative duty.
 
Earlier court challenges resulted in injunctive relief on behalf of city employees due to the city not evenly enforcing the residency requirement. The questions about what documents are “proof” and the sufficiency of the affidavits, and the timing of the strict enforcement likely will be those which a judge will determine… again!