Bill would let statutory cities bypass civil-service tests for lateral police hires and run cadet academies

Representatives Joe Miller and Kevin Miller told the House Public Safety Committee that House Bill 44 would give statutory cities the same flexibility charter cities already have to hire experienced officers without requiring a civil-service exam and would allow municipal police chiefs to run cadet training programs.

“We would like to grant departments the power to fill vacant positions in civil service exams without an exam if the department can present evidence that the competitive component is unnecessary and the applicant has exceptional qualifications,” one sponsor said during testimony.

Why it matters: Sponsors said the current civil‑service testing process can delay lateral transfers for months and impose costs that keep already-trained officers from immediately serving in a new jurisdiction. They argued that charter cities can already hire directly and that statutory cities should have the same option.

Discussion highlights - Scope: Sponsors said the bill targets entry-level officer and lateral-hire appointments, not promotional ranks such as sergeant or lieutenant. The sponsor described the authority as permissive and limited to cases where the department documents the applicant’s exceptional qualifications. - Training schools: The bill would permit municipal chiefs to run local training schools in line with Ohio Peace Officer Training Academy standards; graduates could be eligible for direct hiring by the sponsoring department subject to statutory requirements. - Background checks and bad actors: Committee members raised concerns about ensuring uniform background checks to prevent “bad actors” from moving between jurisdictions; sponsors said the vast majority of agencies already conduct background investigations and that hiring departments would still be expected to check prior records.

Committee reaction and next steps: Several members including ranking members from charter cities expressed support, saying the bill would improve recruitment and retention. Members asked sponsors to ensure safeguards such as mandatory background checks remain explicit. Sponsors said they would work with members to tighten language and consider any necessary reporting or documentation requirements.

Ending: No vote was taken at the first hearing; sponsors asked the committee to advance the idea with clarifying amendments.