APPLICABILITY OF GOVERNMENT CODE EMPLOYEE RESIDENCE REQUIREMENTS TO CITY CHARTER

Home Browse Search

/"" ,•~i.^. _ VL.. ._._... ~~~ lw_\r V_ i ~Ci_C;a.l~;;; that c:. ~i~~ . .l/ 5 L._:-~? C L i.~ ~.J J . they Gam;: ~.o: ~~c~;?'E:S, (1970; 26 _::'ceTZu~;a i.o pre-e::^_ t ~_~e ~, CR G%3, ~•.9 P2;;i 353, J :.G ~..` c~.'J s~~c-cifically ordinances of Charter Section 50083 does not specifically state that it is intended to pr~^empt the ordinances of Charter C1tieS . Iilui: is Assemblyman John P. Quimby, o~ San Bernardiio, has now prcposcc T,n 1935 Lo the State Legislature which will specifically :as.:te Scc-~io_. 50083 applicable to Charter cities . Until this bill is passo;l we G re o =she opinion tna't Section 50083 is riot appiica;~le to file City of Su__:.a Ana. The City o~: Fresno, a Chartered City, had an orcir;unco similar to that of the City of .Santa Ar_a .and successfully defe:~dcc~ that os:i:zarce in tre case of Paul v ~i'::e City of Fresno, case :=,amber 141055. the City of Inglewood, also a C".artered City, had a si~?il~.r ordir_ancc that w~.s foun3 vayid as it applied to "emergency person"_~el" but which w~.s fou:~d invalid as to ail other perso_~r~el. Neither of 't~:e Superior Cour-:: decisions in the Inglewood nor the Fresno case are applicable to the City or Sa:~.ta A_za. since they were local County Superior Court c:~cisionso Until these decisions reach the State Courts of Appeal :.hey are not apy~~ic4ble to -t=~e City oL Santa Ana. Is the resid`~ce of ci't~r employees strictly a "municipal ~ c':"=~:31r. ° 1'r?e rule i.s ~i:a= befOiv2 ;a 'Charter C1tV muy lec,"islate In ~._ area cgni:rary to the general law, t'r~e area of legislation must a~ an area thin is strictly "a municipal affair." California Constitution, Article 11, Section 5(~:). r•i.ere have been r~o cases specifically holding that the residency rec~uiremont o~ city employees is strictly "a municipal affair" however t'rere•r~~ve been casos holding that the hiring, paying and the com- pe_zsation of municipal. c-myloyees generally are matters pertaining to ~r"znicipal a-:~airs. Department cf L?ester and 'power v Indio Chemical Co., i5 .Cal 2d %!:.4'., ~C8 ~2d 4:0. .~ -~aerc~.~re follows that the imposition of a residency requirement c city u.ly loyees would also be a "municipal affair. " phis position is further supported by California State Cons- l_~~~io:z, i~rticle yl, Section 5 (b) whic'n states that "It shall be c;,r.;:~e'cen~. iz all city charters to provide" ....for the compensation, :~:ethoc~ o:~ appointment, qualifications, ... [of municipal employees] . " •.iis Ccr.s-citutional section thus says that the city may propose a resic~er.cy rcc-uire~rcnt in .its Charter, and the logical extension of ~::zest c;r;::r1t of au-~rcrity would mean that the city may of course impose aresid~::ZCy reGy~airernenl by ordinance rather than charter since it is '^ generally rccoL~:zizcd trat "qualifications of employees" is strictly "c;~ mll:ir.ClY7c;1 ui::t:ulr. " 26