FOP logo

New Jersey State Lodge Fraternal Order of Police

June 23, 2015
 
Brothers and Sisters:

This week I sent a letter to all 80 members of the NJ General Assembly urging them to vote "no" A - 4265, legislation that permits municipal, county, and regional police and fire forces to establish five-year residency requirements for police officers and firefighters. 

We believe, among other things, that residency programs are a condition of employment and should be negotiated at the local level.  We also believe that residency programs for police officers could put both the officers and his/her families at risk.

These bills are up for a vote on Thursday in both the Assembly and the Senate.
We need to kill these bills.

Fraternally,

 

 
Robert W. Fox
State FOP President

(Here is the letter sent to all members of the NJ General Assembly.)
 

Honorable Members,New Jersey State General Assembly:

 

On behalf of the 13,000 law enforcement officers of the New Jersey State Fraternal Order of Police (FOP), Iask you to vote NO on null A-4265 (Permits Municipal,County and Regional Police and Fire Forces to Establih Five Year Residency Requirement for Police Officers and Firefighter) on June 25, 2015. The FOP believes the bill is premised on faulty policy making decisions and will create hardships for police officers throughout the State if a local municipality, county or regional governmental entity mandates a five year residency requirement. Additionally, the FOP believes this bill - although permissive and prospective-? contradicts the spirit of America where individuals should be able to live where they can best provide for the needs of their families, regardless of where their job is located.

 

You should be aware of the fact that on some residency issues the Courts have not been supportive of durational residency requirements, such as in the case of The NAACP vs. The Town of Harrison which ruled that Harrison's residency ordinance violated Federal Civil Rights Laws. Additionally, the FOP believes that residency should be a negotiable term of employment through the Collective Bargaining process.

 

There will also be an impact on the hiring pools that would be available to communities which adopt a five year residency ordinance. By limiting where a police officer and his/her family must live, future applicants will look to communities that allow them to live where they and their families believe is in their best interest. This decision is a personal decision and should never be mandated by government ? especially in the United States of America. Then there is the cost issue. The starting salary of police officers probably will not be sufficient for purchasing a decent home in many communities where they work and would be required to live.

 

If the intent of the bill is to assure that police officers feel part of the communities where they work, this bill is unnecessary. Police officers are professionals who work within specific guidelines and boundaries of accepted practice. These guidelines remain the same regardless of where they live. Communities, in the truest sense of the word,extend beyond political boundaries. Police officers may live outside a specific area but Iassure you they are very much part of the communities they police on a daily basis.

 

If the intent of this bill is to also increase the rateables of a community by requiring a police officer to live where he/she works and to encourage police officers and their families to shop where they live, remember for each officer who is forced to live where he/she works, another town where the officer would rather live loses that source of income. Does this then turn in to a Statewide "raiding" war where communities compete with each other for financial gains rather than in the interest of puqlic safety or the well-being of police officers?

  

Additionally, the Assembly has before it on the same day (June 25th.) a better alternative to establishing residency where a police officer works, Senate Bill No. 1593/Assembly Bill No. 213, which provides down payment assistance to encourage, not mandate, police officers, firefighters and other public workers to purchase residential property in specially designated neighborhoods. This is the American way of making policy which the FOP supports and commends its sponsors.

 

Finally, there is a serious potential threat to a police officer and his/her family if this bill were to be become law as well as the potential for a good police officer to make a bad decision. You need to consider that a police officer living in a community may at times be faced with the need to weigh the consequences of taking action against a criminal perpetrator who knows where the police officer and his/her family lives or where his/her children attend school. And take note that the amendment to the bill permitting an exception to the residency requirement if a police officer or his/her family is injured or threatened with injury AFTER being mandated to move into a community because of his/her status as a police officer is AFTER the fact. What is a police officer and his/her family to do at that time, disrupt

their lives once more and attempt to relocate. Living in the community where a police officer lives does not make the job less difficult to perform, it makes it potentially more difficult and dangerous to the officer and his/her family.

 

Let me close by saying good police officers in general have been unfairly under attack in this country. They are often demoralized and feel their job is a thankless one, yet they continue to act as professionals. Please do not add another insult and attack on the men and women who proudly wear their badges to protect you and your families every day they are on the job-WHEREVER YOU CHOOSE TO LIVE.

 

Vote your conscious-VOTE NO.

 

If you have any questions, please contact Peter Guzzo, the FOP Government Affairs Agent (609-883- 7481 or njttp@msn .com).

 

 

 

Respectfully Yours,

 

 

 

Robert W. Fox

President