Residency Rules

Which matters more for the District, talent or home address?

THE COMPETENCE and qualifications of Peter Nickles, general counsel to D.C. Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D), are beyond question. A top corporate lawyer with more than four decades of experience, Mr. Nickles has an equally distinguished record of public service. His appointment was widely hailed, and he's had real impact in his first months in office. Nonetheless, Mr. Nickles's continued service is imperiled because of the District's strict residency requirements. That someone of Mr. Nickles's caliber could be disqualified from government service is reason to rethink a practice that values where someone lives more than what that person can do.

As a member of Mr. Fenty's inner circle, Mr. Nickles is among those city employees required by law to become residents within 180 days of appointment. Time, as the Washington City Paper recently reported, is running out, and Mr. Nickles still lives in Great Falls, his home for the past 44 years. Mr. Nickles had thought he would be able to comply with the city rules when he accepted the mayor's offer. But the requirements are more rigid than Mr. Nickles had realized. He rightly has ruled out the charade of trying to establish a D.C. domicile without giving up his Virginia residence. That leaves moving, resigning or seeking a waiver from the rules.

Certainly, a move would be a major upheaval for Mr. Nickles, 68, who already has made a sacrifice in leaving a lucrative private practice (senior counsel at Covington & Burling). Yet waivers can be granted only for hard-to-fill jobs or under exceptional circumstances, such as for the official who argued hardship if his wife, who is blind, had to move from their familiar Alexandria home. Mr. Nickles is still wrestling with his decision. In seeking a waiver, he would need the support of the mayor and the D.C. Council.

The dilemma facing Mr. Nickles and the city he serves so well illustrates why we have never been a fan of residency requirements. Yes, there are advantages to having officials, particularly in top jobs, live where they work. It can provide a better understanding of the jurisdiction, and it's nice for an official to pay taxes to the city that's paying his salary. But draconian rules about where people live tend either to limit the pool of job applicants or to cause unnecessary burdens for employees. It's instructive that residency rules, which came into vogue in the 1970s when there was an exodus from hard-pressed cities to the suburbs, are now less popular, in part because cities are becoming more desirable again.

It would be shortsighted for any mayor to staff his or her administration with officials not invested in the city. But also shortsighted are rules that restrict the ability to attract talent. Mr. Nickles gets his mail in Great Falls, Va., but his years of pro bono work for D.C.'s neglected and marginalized residents show where his heart has been.