Jencunas: Residency Requirements - Bad Idea For City Boards

Jencunas: Residency Requirements - Bad Idea For City Boards

Residency requirements were a major issue when the City Council’s finance committee debated licensing board appointments. The council would be wise to judge appointees on their merits, not their address.

Mayor Elorza nominated Cranston resident Luis Peralta for a seat on the licensing board. Peralta was one of Elorza’s earliest supporters and donors, and sought-after appointments are a traditional way to reward allies. As Buddy Cianci often says, “No politician ever stands up on election night and says, ‘I want to thank all my supporters, but in the interest of democracy, I’m not going to give them consideration, I’m going to hire my enemies.’”

Some city councilors are skeptical of a Cranston resident serving on the licensing board. Residency questions should not derail Peralta’s appointment. Especially for appointed boards, strict residency requirements can lead to biased appointees who will advance their neighborhood over the public good.

GET THE LATEST BREAKING NEWS HERE -- SIGN UP FOR GOLOCAL FREE DAILY EBLAST

The case for residency requirements is logical. People are more likely to make thoughtful decisions if they are affected by the results. Therefore, the argument goes, making city appointees live in the city will produce better results.

Residency makes sense as a goal for large workforces like the police and teachers. In these positions, objective decision making is done better by an intimate knowledge of the neighborhoods and their inhabitants. Furthermore, having workforces with city residents is a good way to guard against what received national attention after Ferguson – a city workforce who views city residents as the enemy. 

Even then, residency shouldn’t be a requirement, as that can interfere with recruiting talented candidates. But it ought to be an advantage for potential candidates, in order to ensure the city’s workforce isn’t vastly different from the people they serve. 

Appointed boards are different from these larger workforces. Boards work in a wonkier, more mechanistic way, similar to a judge. They are expected to weigh arguments and render impartial verdicts, not engage with a community.

With appointed boards, there’s a dark side to the logic of residency. People who are affected by the results of their decision will put themselves first, which can lead to decisions that help them but hurt the city. 

For example, consider a zoning board member reviewing an affordable housing development in their neighborhood. The development wouldn’t be considered just on its merits. Instead, the zoning board member would consider how it would affect his property values and whether he wants lower-income residents in his neighborhood. 

Historically, people have fought those developments tooth-and-nail and would likely do so if they were zoning board members. The city would be better served in that hypothetical by an impartial board member who lived outside of Providence. 

The same would be true of a licensing board member reviewing a bar in his neighborhood. If he disliked the noise, he might close it even if the bar’s actions didn’t deserve that punishment. 

Instead of residency, board members should be evaluated based on their judgment. If they have shown an ability to weigh evidence, listen to varying viewpoints, and make unpopular decisions, they will probably make a good board member even if they live in Cranston.

Luis Peralta’s confirmation is in the hands of the city council. He possesses the most important qualification – donating early to the winning mayoral candidate. I don’t know if he has the proper judgment, but that’s what his confirmation should be based on, not his address.

Brian Jencunas works as a communications and media consultant. He can be reached at [email protected] and always appreciates reader feedback.