County counsel reviewing residency ordinance

EL CENTRO — While there is a question whether the county’s residency requirement for county employees could have withstood a legal challenge, it seems clear it has been ignored while it has been on the books.

County Counsel Adam Crook told the Board of Supervisors he would research the ordinance at length, including whether other agencies have a similar ordinance and how they are being handled before coming back to the board with options.

The number of county employees who live in Mexico is a matter of dispute.

County Public Information Officer Linsey

Dale said employees are required to provide and maintain a valid mailing address with the county where employment related information can be sent.

According to the county records, she said there are currently 16 employees who list a mailing address outside of Imperial County. There could be situations where an employee’s mailing address is different from their physical address, she said.

Former Imperial County program manager and former supervisor candidate Claudia Camarena claimed the 16 number was “absurd,” as the department where she worked for 30 years exceeded that number by itself.

She is confident the number for those who live in Mexico, but cross the border to work for the county, is at least 200 to 300.

Camarena raised the question whether enforcing the ordinance would help the county’s unemployment rate, easily the worst in the state. She also pointed out that the money being earned in government jobs here is being taken out of the country, depriving Imperial County the multiplier effect of those dollars.

Local attorney Ryan Childers said the ordinance, as problematic as it might be, is legal and should have been followed.

He said if there was a judge’s ruling, then the ordinance could have been rescinded, but since it still is on the books, that did not happen.

“It’s more problematic to justify necessity,” he said. “What compelling reason does the county have?

Dale dismissed Childers’ opinion, asking if he was a human resources attorney. She said California law supersedes the ordinance and also mentioned there are anti-discrimination laws in place.

Dale pointed to Article XI, Section 10 of the California Constitution that generally prohibits a local agency from requiring its employees to reside within its jurisdiction.

She said the county recognizes this and employs individuals not only from Mexicali, but from all surrounding areas, including San Diego, Coachella Valley and Yuma.

Supervisor Jesus Eduardo Escobar said Crook informed the board that if the ordinance was enforced and resulted in a loss of jobs for many employees, it would probably be challenged in court and likely would not survive the ruling.

Dale said the county does not tell its employees where they can live regardless of the distance away from work. Elected officials, on the other hand, must live in their county and district.

Following the ordinance, Escobar said, would likely place undue harm to its employees.

“This ordinance would be a challenge to defend in court,” he said. “[Crook] will review the options.”

The supervisors could rescind the ordinance, but they want to wait to hear from its legal counsel.

“At the end of the day we want flexibility for the county on this ordinance,” Escobar said.