Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Employment Policy topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Muskegon County committee rejects residency restriction in telework policy; staff to draft separate policy

Muskegon County Ways and Means Committee · September 2, 2025
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

The Ways and Means Committee voted 0–7 against adding a permanent residency restriction to the county telework policy. Staff said the proposed language is better handled as a standalone residency policy and will return with revised language.

The Muskegon County Ways and Means Committee on Sept. 2 declined to approve a proposed change to the county’s telework policy that would have added a permanent residency restriction for employees.

The item, recorded in the meeting materials as WM250849, proposed adding an employee permanent residency restriction to the personnel rules effective Oct. 1, 2025, and gave employees outside the stated guidelines until Oct. 1, 2026 to relocate to comply. Commissioner Hayes moved the measure and Commissioner Herman seconded.

During discussion, one committee speaker described the draft as "really a residency policy, a policy that is not regarding telework," and staff recommended against approving the motion so they could return with a standalone residency policy and a slightly revised commuting-radius definition. A staff participant summarized the internal approach as separating eligibility criteria for remote work from any statutory residency requirement, saying residency could be enforced by a separate policy and that telework eligibility could include exceptions for critical skills.

Mister Eisenberg was invited to respond to commissioner questions and staff said they would work with corporate counsel on precise language. The committee then voted; the meeting record states, "And the motion fails 0 to 7."

Because staff recommended drafting a separate residency policy and legal considerations were raised in the discussion, the committee did not adopt the proposed residency restriction and asked staff to return with revised language.

Next steps: staff will draft a standalone residency policy and bring it back for committee consideration; no timetable for the return was stated in the meeting record.