Roberts: 'Unfair' Exclusion
DC 37, Council Still Apart on Residency

By MEREDITH KOLODNER

District Council 37 Executive Director Lillian Roberts is angry that the City Council has not lifted the residency requirement for 45,000 of her members a year and a half after the Mayor gave his approval, but she says that the union is still in the educational stage of the campaign to get the legislation passed.

LEROY COMRIE: DC 37 being inflexible.

Members of DC 37 frustrated with the rule that keeps them confined to living in the five boroughs spoke out at a press conference on Oct. 29, which the union held to put pressure on the Council to pass the bill.

Urgency Grows

Ms. Roberts argued that the housing crisis in the city and a recent decision that will allow thousands of provisional employees to apply for permanent jobs make the issue even more pressing now than in the summer of 2006 when it was negotiated. But she emphasized that the union is not yet at the stage of "threatening" Council Members with political consequences for their refusal to budge.

"We've got people living in housing projects and in shelters who have to comply with an outdated resolution," Ms. Roberts said in an interview last week. "It's not fair that people who make more money have more opportunities."

The Chief-Leader/Adrienne Haywood-James STRIVING TO EDUCATE: District Council 37 Executive Director Lillian Roberts said last week she hoped a press conference at City Hall would help educate Council Members who oppose lifting residency requirements for 45,000 DC 37 members. 'By holding up this bill, you are holding back promotions for minorities,' she said.

She added that she believed that the Council didn't understand the seriousness of the situation and that the union had embarked on a campaign to raise their awareness.

DC 37 officials have long complained about the inequity of a policy that allows Teachers, firefighters, police officers and some white-collar workers to live in six New York State counties that surround the city but restricts 45,000 mostly minority and blue collar workers to the five boroughs.

Promotion Issues

A recent court decision compelled the city to take steps to reduce the number of provisional employees on the payrolls. The Department of Citywide Administrative Services is preparing to hold exams for a range of titles to comply with the ruling. Ms. Roberts argued that in some cases, workers who qualify for promotions to become permanent city employees will be disadvantaged by the residency restrictions.

She asserted that DCAS had agreed that the promotions would be granted purely by title, so workers could change agencies without a problem. Some agencies, such as the Department of Education and the Housing Authority, have no residency restrictions, regardless of job title while others, such as the Administration for Children's Services, have restrictions for some titles. Ms. Roberts argued that someone who is an Associate Clerk at DOE and lives outside the city and passes an exam to become a Clerk for a job opening at ACS would be unfairly held back because of the residency requirement.

"By holding up this bill, you are holding back promotions for minorities," she said.

Outdated Requirement

Ms. Roberts argued that the restriction has outlived its usefulness since it was implemented. "They put it in place 20 years ago when they felt that they had white flight," she said.

Ms. Roberts admitted that there had been little progress so far, and said that the press conference was an effort to "educate" the public and the Members. "I've met four times with Ms. Quinn," she said. "That's how I know we're having trouble." She said she also met directly with the Mayor two weeks ago and asked him to call the Speaker. She said Mr. Bloomberg was "surprised" the bill hadn't moved yet and that he had promised to speak with Ms. Quinn.

She believes that fears expressed by some Council Members that jobs will go to people outside the city are unfounded. "No one's going to run in here and grab a little clerical job for $23,000," she said. "We're trying to say, 'Forget about your politics, take a look at what it's doing to people.'''

But Council Members asserted that they are not playing politics and instead are trying to keep city jobs for city residents. "We want to protect our constituents' opportunity to have an advantage, frankly," said Queens Councilman Leroy Comrie.

Mr. Comrie, like several of his colleagues, said that he was willing to consider a bill that would require residency for new employees, but allow them to move out of the city after a period of time.

'So Negative'

"We have said that we would grandfather existing employees out, and require it for new people," he said. "We haven't locked in a number. They have just been so negative about the discussion. It makes for very short meetings."

Mr. Comrie added that workers living in homeless shelters should be given a waiver to live wherever they can, especially if they have family or friends who they could live with outside the city.

While he said he was willing to find a middle ground, he didn't think the issue was purely one of equity, since he, like other Council Members, believes that all city workers - including cops, firefighters and Teachers - should have to live in the city. He argued that in the case of cops, residency could help to reduce tensions in some communities. "You inherently take more pride in what you're doing when you and your neighbors are affected," he said.

'Sticking Head in Sand'

And the Councilman argued that DC 37 misunderstood the Council's opposition as one of "confusion" or "playing politics," and therefore had refused to compromise in a way that would protect current residents and existing employees. "We've had sit-downs with them on multiple levels," he said. "They want the bill in the original form. That's almost unprecedented. That's just sticking your head in the sand."

But Ms. Roberts said that the union would not back down. "As long as I breathe I'm going to be fighting and trying to educate the City Council as to how important it is," she said.

Asked when the union would decide that the education approach had failed and a new tactic was needed, she responded, "This is informational at this stage of the game. What will follow, they'll know. I don't want to threaten anybody."

She added, "And then if that doesn't work, we have to go back to the drawing board. Our patience is wearing pretty thin. I'm one of those people who creeps slowly but surely."