Review of Personnel Rule Residency Waivers

Executive Summary

A recent Inspector General’s Office (IGO) investigation of an employee’s alleged violation of the City’s residency requirement necessitated a review and analysis of the City’s practice of granting “residency waivers” that allow City employees to live outside of the City for limited periods of time. Based on that review, the IGO has concluded that the current language of the City’s Personnel Rule IV, Section 5, which provides that the Department of Human Resources (DHR) Commissioner may waive the City’s residency requirement for particular applicants or jobs, conflicts with and generally has been applied in violation of the City’s residency ordinance, Municipal Code of Chicago Section 2-152-050. The City’s residency ordinance provides—with no exceptions—that all officers and employees of the City must reside within the City or else be discharged from City employment. The residency ordinance, which carries the force and effect of law, supersedes the administrative personnel rules promulgated by the DHR Commissioner and thus appears to prohibit any ―waiver‖ of the residency requirement.

DHR has historically relied upon Personnel Rule IV, Section 5, to grant temporary residency waivers for employees of a critical or specialized nature. These waivers have most commonly been used to provide new employees a limited period of time to relocate to Chicago. DHR is generally entitled to deference in the construction of its own rules, provided that its construction comports with the language of the rules and the applicable City ordinances.  But however reasonable residency waivers may be as a matter of policy, DHR’s interpretation and construction of Personnel Rule IV, Section 5, appears to operate as an exception to the City’s residency ordinance, a law that permits no exceptions. Accordingly, discretionary administrative waivers of the residency requirement are presently not allowed as a matter of City law and will remain so absent an ordinance change. The IGO takes no position on the merits of such a change to the residency ordinance. We note merely that in its current form—and contrary to the language of the City’s current Personnel Rules—the residency ordinance does not permit any form of administrative waiver of the residency requirement.