Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Residency Ordinance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Ironton police captain and residents urge council to reconsider residency ordinance timing and fairness
Summary
Ironton Police Captain Chad Guido and residents urged the council to consider fairness and timing before approving a proposed residency ordinance that would require department chiefs to live in specific counties; one commenter warned changing rules during a hiring process could appear unfair to applicants.
Captain Chad Guido of the Ironton Police Department identified himself to the council and urged members to consider his 18 years of service and the ordinance’s practical effects before it is adopted.
"I never asked for favoritism. I never asked for anything. I asked for fairness," Chad Guido said, adding: "I've literally bled for this city for 18 years." He questioned why residency limits would allow living in Gallipolis, Ohio, but exclude Huntington, West Virginia, and asked the council for an explanation of how the policy treats applicants and incumbents.
A separate resident, Sherry Cook, told the council she was concerned about the timing of the proposed residency change while an active police hiring process was underway. "Why would that be stopped midstream to change a law that would change residency requirements after scores have been submitted?" she asked, saying the timing could create the appearance of nontransparency and unfairness to applicants.
The ordinance read at the meeting (ordinance 26-16) would require the chiefs of police and fire to be residents of specified counties and was presented as a first reading with an emergency clause. Council members did not vote on the ordinance at the meeting; several council members asked staff or the mayor to follow up and provide clarification on residency distances, exemptions and any immediate staffing impacts before the next reading.
Council members scheduled no formal amendment or final action at the session; they asked staff to bring back details on how the ordinance would be applied to ongoing hiring and to confirm whether any hiring decisions would be affected retroactively.
