Once definition of insanity is to keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect different results.
So why is the city even bothering to try to make its firefighters live within city limits?
Bear in mind that this is the rule in small towns all across the state. I know, because I’ve reported from small towns all across the state. And virtually all of them make it a rule: If you get hired by the town, you move to the town within a specified period of time. This includes firefighters and police officers.
But Peoria’s police and firefighter unions don’t want this. And because these two particular unions aren’t allowed to strike, they instead take outstanding issues to arbitration. And arbitrators routinely rule in their favor on this issue.
When City Hall tried to make Peoria police officers live in the city, the union fought back and it went to arbitration. The city lost, and declined to pursue because defeat was inevitible.
So here is the city going into binding arbitration with the firefighters. Why bother?
The powers-that-be in this state are pretty much bending over for the police and firefighter unions (that’s one reasons their pensions keep getting fatter and fatter, by the way).
As a result, the city of Peoria has the power to tell a code enforcement officer (whose job it is to ticket people for not having lids on their garbage cans) that HE has to live within city limits. But people who maintain order and put out fires? They can live pretty much as far away as they want.
Tags: arbitration, firefighters, peoria, Police, residency
Billy Dennis is a former reporter and editor at small daily and weekly newspapers in Illinois and Missouri. He comments on media, news and politics. He also owns and operates 
Forcing city employees to live in the city may also force their children to attend District 150 schools. Who’s the real victim in this scenario?
Everybody.
The kids sufer because their parents are teaching them to run from adversity.
The poor kids whose parantrs cannot afford Dunlap or school choice.
The District as a whole because of the loss of tax revenue.
If they don’t want to send their kids to 150, or pay for private school, then get a different f#@#%#@$ job. Why should voluntary workers get to dictate benifits??? It is a right to work state, is it not? If you don’t like it, get the hell out. I’m sure there is no lack of qualified candidates lining up for the fluffly pensions and early retirement.
This is a function of public safety, and their is a benifit to have know officers and policemen living in the city and relating to its residents… enough said.
I apologize, that spelling was just plain bad. (Why is there an “add comment” button” and a “submit” button… I seem to accidentially hit the first one prior to filling out the anti-spam form”…
I don’t know whether Peoria firefighters are ever expected to ‘take call’ (remain at home, but be available to be called into work in case of emergency. If they are, and my house happens to be on fire, I’d much rather they be within 10 or 15 minutes away, as opposed to…oh…say an hour and a half.
That’s why most municipalities require emergency personnel to live within the city limits. Because they ARE ‘emergency’ personnel. I’m thinkin that there just aren’t many emergent situations that require the presence of a code enforcement officer.
last claification I promise…. (its been a long day). I mispoke, I said Right-to-work I am “at-will employee”…
You need to check your facts on this one. Most areas have volunteer fire department. Of the ones that have paid full time firefighters, most do not require them to live IN the limits of the city or town.
Take Pekin, Bloomington, or Normal for example. They all have a radius you must live in. Usually 10-20 miles from a “center point” in the city. These are towns that recognize that you need to have your staff be within a certain response time but there is no real reason to make people live in the town they work for.
Looking at areas like the Chicago suburbs or Long Island you find out that there are no requirements whatsoever. Many of these guys are on paid depts and volunteer in their hometown (against the union rules though).
Actually, there are many good people who do not want anything to do with the PFD simply because they would be required to live in the city limits.
Residency requirements are really a relatively new idea. Many cities did away with them right away because they saw that the pool of candidates went from really big to a smaller list, many people are just not willing to move from their homes if they live outside a given area.
Yes, there are call-ins in the event of large incidents. However, this is why most towns have gone with a certain radius of the city for residency rather than within the limits. It opens things up but still keeps the people close.
Not all. “Many” aremedium sized municipalities with paid fire departments and paid police officers who simply REQUIRE their officers to live in their cities.
It’s not as if any city smaller than Peoria has an all-volunteer squad. And many volunteer squads have a handful of paid firefighters.
Even if the firefighter or police officer is living just on the other side of the border, it’s still on the other side of the border, meaning property taxes are not being paid into the city, and that by itself is a legitimate reason for the city to be allowed a residency rule.
I think there should be a residency requirement for “Peoria” bloggers.
ABSOLUTELY! Someone needs to hold those scumbags accountable.
It’s a sad state of affairs that police and firemen are deserting the city they are sworn to protect. The neighborhood leaders try and try to make things better, but good people still continue to abandon our areas, leaving the criminals to quickly multiply and fill in the vacancies. We already recieve little help what’s one more punch in the stomach.
Actually no, most paid departments have either abandoned the residency requirements or have moved to a radius rule. And those who have not are considering it. They have realized that it severly limits the pool of applicants, often eliminating people with experience just because of where they live. It also makes for unhappy employees who would like to live in a more rural area.
Galesburg, Peoria, and Canton require living in the city. EP is doing away with it. Pekin, Bloomington, Normal, and Urbana have a radius rule. Champaign has no rules (they have many firefighters who drive a VERY long way to work).
So if the city’s taxes pay you, that constitutes a reason to live in the city and pay taxes (part of your own salary)? I have never seen the connection with that argument. It’s not like a person who works for Pepsi and drinks only Pepsi products. That is a for profit business. Government is not.
It’s not a question of them abandoning their city. Most of these guys are on the job because they love it, not because they were motivated to serve their city. Don’t get me wrong, they will stop at nothing to serve, but MOST of them came because they loved the work.
So, relaxing the rules just allows people who are highly qualified but unwilling to move from their homes to be among the pool of candidates.
It is telling when someone chooses not to live in the city in which they choose to serve and protect. It is also telling when district 150 teachers send their kids to private schools because they have no confidence in the schools they work in. What kind of motivation do people have if they don’t have a stake in the results of their endeavour? If I worked at Pizza Hut and didn’t like the product, would I really be the best employee I could be? If someone at Anheiser Bush didn’t like their product, would they be an effective salesmen? I don’t think so. In fact their employement there might be short lived.
If an officer has no stake in the community in which he serves, so what if the crack house goes unshuttered. So what if people blow stop signs. So what if people regularly speed through construction zones. Their family, friends and neighbors are far far away from danger. Rather than being part of a solution they become part of the problem.
Tony, the houses are empty none the less. guess who fills empty houses in my neighborhood. Not hard working people that take of their property, monitor their children, and are good neighbors like the firefighters and the police staff. If the employees wont stay in town, guess who moves in.
If an officer allows crime to go by his or her eye, then he or she is a bad officer. Not doing their job. If a firefighter decides not to go in after the little kid, then he or she is a bad firefighter, not doing their job.
Do you really think that people who choose to do these jobs base the decision on how well they will perform based on their own personal stake in the city they work for? Or do they choose to do the job because they like it and they want to help people, no matter where they are? I hope it is the latter.
Bill,
So many of your facts in your posting are flat out wrong.
For example, until just a few years ago, in Illinois cops were not even allowed to bargain on the issue of city residency requirments. The city didn’t just “make” them meet these standards. They did enact them many years ago but not recently.
As for “outstanding issues” taken to arbitrators, both sides are bound by the SAME guidlines and to me (being involved in labor issues) it is clear that items go to arbitrators for a variety of reasons – the major two being an impasse and one side obviously isn’t bargaining in good faith. Also, you seem to be wanting to punish a group of people for getting good at labor negotiations. Something that seems to fly in the face of your so called “libertarianism” and “self-reliance” blatherings.
Next, any other unionized city employee group can bargain for city residency changes and have actually been able to do so longer than police or firefighters.
Also, look at the BS happening to the firefighters – not only are they paying for their own representation, but they and other city employees are paying their tax money to help the city to screw city employees, so you have groups of people being taxed twice.
Lastly, let’s get over a big myth that you keep spreading – I have local cops who are friends and I have been told time and time again that city cops are PROHIBITED by city rules and regulations from getting involved in the majority of actions while off duty. I have been told by cops that they are supposed to act as “witnesses” and they should only get involved in issues that would involve the threat of life or great bodily harm. So get off this kick that a neighbor who happens to be a cop is going to step in because some teen in the neighborhood is bouncing rocks off the roof of your trailer.
And to clear something else up about “residencey requirements” these things actually started to reward political loyalists with jobs. Their start had nothing to do with providing emergency service, but to make sure people kept voting for the politicians in office.
And it is insulting to insinuate someone doesn’t give a crap about their work habits just because of where they live. Besides, would you really want that type of an employee? And for this matter, what is the difference between someone living out at Trails Edge and Bartonville if they work in the south end? For the person who makes this claim, it is like saying a cop or firefighter won’t care about a part of town unless he or she lives there. Sheesh….
Get real.
Scott: Sometimes, I really do think you have a readinf comprehension problem. You seem to be arguign against positions I have not made in this post or the comments.
First, I have lives next door to and across the street from members of the Peoria Police Department. I assume you that police are wonderful neighbors to have, because problems like the the neighborhood bully and the neighborhood littebug seem to go away rather quckly. This is despote any prohibition against cops getting oinvolved in these little issues. And don’t think for a moment that the neighborhood crackhead/sneak theif doesn’t know where the cops live.
And are you suggestign that when city employees pay taxes, they have an expectation that their tax money won’t go to the costs the city incurs in collective barganing?
And I am one of the very few pro-labor libertarians you will ever meet,
I would prefer to do away with arbitration and mediation and all other nonsense and let the firefighters and police officers strike if they want. As long as the city has the right to permanently replace them (thereby approximating the situation that exists in the private sector). The current system tends to play out in FAVOR of the union employees. Based on a fair-market assessment, Peoria’s firefighters have excellent salaries and pensions. And they keep going up.
Let em live here if they want the job. Every year at budget time, we hear the Fire Administration and the Union leadership talking about the need for increased services to protect the public and keep the response time down to an acceptable level. You hear it SO much you almost begin to believe it.
Now think about where these firefighters are going to go if they move out of the City: Dunlap, West Peoria, Princeville, Washington, Morton, Sunnyland, Metamora, etc. NONE of these town even have a paid fire department….so how much do they really believe in the necessity of the protection they provide if they are willing to reside in a community that has only volunteer fire departments?
Seems to me they are trying to have it both ways.
Bill,
Go back and re-read your entry and then all the reply entries. Every point I made was a direct reply to what either you wrote or what another poster wrote.
Should I start using numerical bullets to help you keep track?
Ok Thank you scott for what you said! Maybe if you fixed the Schools in peoria some of us well trained people would take the job and then we can talk about moving in. We need more police Officers on the street. And we need to find a stop to all the bad stuf that happens on our own corners. Instead of complaning about were they want to live, try understand why they don’t and do something about it. I am very well trained in the law enforcement field and getting ready to start looking into were I want to work and I love the Peoria police department, But my kid come first. I will not live in a city that slames its cops every chance it gets. Try Talking to them and tell them what a good job they are doing. So the first step to end this all is get better schools!!!!!!! And like your cops that one day you will need, a little more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!