Until now, non-elected City of Wilmington employees, including police officers, were required to be city residents, or become residents within 6 months of their hiring, and remain residents while employed.
But that was thrown into question when the 151st General Assembly passed House Bill 422 last year, which amended section 3-304(b) of the City of Wilmington’s Charter to allow the City to determine to what extent, if at all, it would maintain that requirement.
Since City Council has not passed a new residency requirement since that charter amendment was signed into effect, Mayor Mike Purzycki’s administration argues it no longer exists and has not been enforcing it since October 3rd when an internal announcement was made to council members.
Their assertion is based on an opinion by the City Law Department. The administration is seeking council approval of an ordinance codifying the decision to abolish the residency requirement this week.
Councilman Vincent White disagrees with the overall legality of these actions.
“Mayor Purzycki’s decision not to enforce the existing and lawfully enacted ordinance is arbitrary and capricious at best. The City Charter gives the council the authority to pass and enact laws, and compels the mayor to enforce them,” said White.
Five council members, including Councilwoman Shané Darby and Council President Ernest "Trippi" Congo, agree that the residency requirement should not be removed. Or, at the very least, the community should have a say in the matter.
The Purzycki administration's main argument in opposition to the residency requirement is that it hurts city hiring.
In a statement released today, Purzycki defended his decision to stop upholding the requirement:
“There are critical government positions open such as engineers, planners, attorneys, sanitation drivers and collectors, a water lab supervisor, 911 emergency dispatchers, and police officers among others,” said Purzycki. “We are hopeful that there will now be applicants for these positions where there were none before now that residency is not a factor. These vacant positions are undermining the efficiency of our government. I am proud that we are moving forward to fill much needed positions to ensure we can provide the services that residents expect from their government.”
But Darby argues the belief that removing the requirement will improve the city’s staffing and services is false- and will hurt residents in the long run.
“It’s actually a slap in the face that we're saying that we don't have talent here in the City of Wilmington. And we do. We have a lot of talent here,” explained Darby. “The city needs to invest in finding that talent instead of saying we're going to get outside people to come here to work here.”
Congo agrees, saying that there has not been a real concerted effort to make sure Wilmingtonians are aware of the city’s current staffing shortages.
“Having job fairs, and having announcements on our website- this isn't enough for me. Where was the press conference saying ‘hey Wilmingtonians we need you. We need you to work here. We need you to live here. We need you to work with us,’” said Congo. “There has been no concerted effort by the administration to make that message clear, and make people aware that we do in fact have a staffing shortage. And I believe that is completely unacceptable.”
Of the 1,079 authorized city positions in the budget, 92 are vacant. The city is currently recruiting applicants for 15 of those positions.
Along with Congo, White, and Darby, Councilwomen Michelle Harlee and Zanthia Oliver have expressed their desire to keep the residency requirement.
Where the Purzycki administration argues that having new employees uproot their lives and move into the city within 6 months of being hired in order to meet the residency requirement is an unneeded and harmful burden, White, Congo, and Darby say the solution to that is just to hire within the city itself.
White, a lifelong resident of the city, argues that the requirement puts Wilmingtonians first- which is what the city should always strive to do in its day-to-day operations.
“One, it builds diversity within the community. Two, it furthers the taxpayer's ability to strengthen their local community. Three, it brings a sense of accountability to everyone who lives and works for the city. And four, it's a reflection of the commitment that the city has made to the residents,” said White. “Every administration that I've been around has made promises to this community, and this is a furtherance of their attempt not to honor those promises.”
At a press conference held by White and Darby on Monday, one resident asked whether or not the abolishment of the residency requirement was an example of institutional racism.
Darby says it is.
“This is a predominantly Black and Brown city. And you have people who don't look like the majority of the community making decisions for the community. It is not up to the executive branch, it is not up to Mayor Purzycki to make that decision for us. That should be a decision coming from the community on if we have a residency requirement or no residency requirement,” Darby emphasized. “So it is embedded in institutional racism where it's always this control, this restrictive oppressive control over city council - which is predominantly made up of Black people - and a Black city.”
Purzycki’s ordinance codifying the end of the residency requirement, which would eliminate any references to residency in that section of the city charter, is on the City Council’s Thursday agenda.
7 council members, including Councilman Al Mills, are in support of the ordinance.
