Police pressing city to drop residency requirement

The Fraternal Order of Police - locked in binding arbitration with the city to replace a contract that expires today - is seeking to eliminate a long-standing requirement that police officers live within Philadelphia.

FOP vice president John McGrody said that the union has presented evidence and testimony about ending the residency requirement to a three-member arbitration panel considering terms of the new police contract.

According to state law, the city and FOP each pick one member of that panel and then chose together the third member.

The city's residency requirement dates to 1953 but the state law requiring binding arbitration for police and fire unions allows for the issue to be negotiated.

Tom Jennings, the FOP pick for the panel, has been working on police labor law for 24 years in the city. This is the second time that the FOP has tried to overturn the residency requirement. The last time was five years ago, Jennings said.

"State law says we have a right to bargain on residency," said Jennings, who noted that Philadelphia School District employees don't have to live in the city. "It's the exact same taxpayers. What's the difference?"

Mayor Nutter yesterday said that the city was not interested in dropping the residency requirement for police officers.

Ken Jarin, the city's pick for the arbitration panel, declined to comment. Ralph Colflesh, the panel's third member, did not respond to a request for comment.

While the police contract expires today, it is not uncommon for the arbitration panel's ruling to come months after that.

Nutter in February 2008 pushed the city's Civil Service Commission to waive residency requirements for police recruits, who were required to live in the city for one year before entering the police academy. Under the new policy, which later became law for other city employees, new hires were given six months to establish residency in the city.

McGrody said that police officers and their families told the arbitration panel about wanting better educational opportunities for their kids in the suburbs and facing threats from people in their neighborhoods for their police work.

"Our position is: It would be good for our members and their families," McGrody said. "Our members signed up for this job. Not their families." *

Staff writer Catherine Lucey contributed to this report.