State residency law


As covered on the radio tonight on Kevin Milliken's Eye on Toledo, the new state law about prohibiting jurisdictions from requiring residency requirments may apply to school boards.

Darlene Fisher plans to ask for legal clarification on the issue.

If the new state law applies to TPS and other school districts, the whole issue of residency may be moot...

No votes yet

passed this bill (SB 82) and implemented it on 5/1/06. The language it contains is pretty specific when it defines who cannot institute residency requirements. One of these is school districts.

I am hoping that this will settle the residency question - but if somehow it does not then I am going to call for ALL teachers and staff of TPS be REQUIRED to move into the district within 12 months. No grandfathering due to union input either!

What's good for the goose....

The fiscal analysis:

The bill generally prohibits political subdivisions from requiring that their permanent full-time employees reside in any specific area of the state. According to the Ohio Municipal League, there are 125 cities and 13 villages that have some form of residency requirements in their charters, and are not specific to police and fire service. In some cases these requirements pertain to management employees of the city (city manager, finance director, treasurer, etc.). Many of the larger cities in the state such as Cleveland, Akron, Toledo, Dayton, and Youngstown (by ordinance) have residency requirements for virtually all city employees to live within city limits. Cincinnati requires city employees to live within Hamilton County.

Definition of a "political subdivision" from ORC


We don't remember days only moments...

I was pretty sure today - but this just confirms.

I'm going to be very difficult to get along with for any board members who create another lawsuit tomorrow. I think our political leaders have been doing that enough.

Who do they think pays for these things? We do. With taxes.

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

was 2473.01 as State Definitions of Liability (if I recall). It's pretty specific about which groups fall under the heading of 'political subdivisions' and school districts just happens to be one of them.

I have just re-read Dr. Harner's resume' and I can't help but think that he most certainly should be welcomed into TPS. I just hope that the BOE has enough foresight to see that.

the little stinkers have been scurrying around no doubt - trying to invent a plan b.

Let me predict. They've obviously had someone tell them that what they are planning to require of THEIR CHOICE for Superintendent is illegal.

So they can't do that - they'll just pretend he doesn't exist anymore. They'll have 'moved on'.

Then they'll produce a new list of names - or possibly a warm body to deflect everyones' attention.

And the great question of the day tomorrow is what will the response be?

Will we all move to the left or the right following them and just exclaim - "oooh shiny"

Or will someone have the courage to stand up and say no?

You spent a year of our time and plenty of our money - you picked the best candidate and then refused to negotiate with him in good faith.

Is there anyone who CAN do this? Or do we just have to take it?

I'm still waiting for a hero. Think I'll be disappointed? Or maybe there are still some left?

If you're here to tell me it's my fault - you're right. I meant to do it. It was alot of fun. That's why I have this happy smile on my face.

Research is my favorite thing to do and I know my way around the ORC and the General Assembly...


The trick was finding the definition for a "political subdvision" once that was found? It's pretty obvious that school districts are included.

We don't remember days only moments...

I copied right from the ORC:


We don't remember days only moments...

even if we select someone like Foley. He has 30 years in as of July this year. So, it is not unreasonable for us to think that Foley too would be a "short timer" if hired. He also could move on at any time especially if the right offer came along. His children, I believe have finished school. He could retire (I'd have to check but I believe he would get somewhere close to 90% of his salary - which would be a very good pension), double dip and easily take down a quarter million or more at any time including now. Makes you wonder why he would take the job.

Who did you see that will be assured of anything more than a 3 - 5 year superintendent?

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.