The redundant residency requirement
Last week, the Monroe County Council considered resolution 2010-13, which would require that certain positions be filled by people who are Monroe County residents. Putting aside the merit of the proposed policy, the basic problem with it is that it is redundant because state law already requires that chief deputies live in the county.
IC 36-2-16-3
Performance of duties of appointing officer; regulations and penalties; responsibility for acts of deputy
      Sec. 3. (a) A deputy appointed under this chapter may perform all the official duties of the officer who appointed him and is subject to the same regulations and penalties as the officer.
    (b) The officer appointing the deputy is responsible for all the official acts of the deputy.
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.212, SEC.1.
IC 36-2-16-4
Officers entitled to appoint chief or other deputies and employees
      Sec. 4. Each of the following county officers is entitled to appoint one (1) first or chief deputy, and also may appoint the number of other full-time or part-time deputies and employees authorized by the county fiscal body:
        (1) The county auditor.
        (2) The county treasurer.
        (3) The county recorder.
        (4) The county superintendent of schools.
        (5) The county sheriff.
As added by Acts 1980, P.L.212, SEC.1. Amended by Acts 1981, P.L.11, SEC.154; P.L.174-2006, SEC.20.
The fact that the county council is considering a redudant residency requirement raises an obvious question: How many employees, if any, that are required by state law to be county residents are not actually county residents?
Create your profile
Only paid subscribers can comment on this post
Check your email
For your security, we need to re-authenticate you.
Click the link we sent to , or click here to sign in.