By Patrick McGroarty
News Editor

A move by Mayor Thomas Menino to weaken the residency requirement for members of one of the city's roughly 40 employee unions has drawn loud criticism from City Council President Maureen Feeney and ominous predictions from other pro-residency advocates who have long argued that requiring city employees to live within city limits is crucial to preserving Boston's middle class.

And advocates from both sides of the residency dispute have challenged the city to work towards removing residency from union negotiations, a complicated move that would require action by the state legislature.

Last week, Menino agreed to a tentative contract with the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees (AFSCME), a union with about 1,200 members, that would allow those workers to move out of the city after 10 years of employment. Under an existing contract, AFSCME members are required to live in the city unless they were hired before July 1 1990. A major frustration with the existing residency policy is that unions have individually negotiated the hiring date at which it begins to be enforced. Because the one decade requirement works retroactively, explained Menino spokeswoman Dot Joyce, the proposed contract would relieve around 100 employees of their residency obligation. Joyce was quick to point out that only around 400 AFSCME members have become Boston employees since 1990 and are therefore bound by residency, 70 percent of whom still live in Boston.

But Feeney and her neighbors in her municipal employee-heavy third district who have steadfastly supported residency since it was a cornerstone of Menino's mayoral campaign in 1993 &endash; people like Popes Hill civic leader Phil Carver and members of Save our City, the once outspoken pro-residency group &endash; say that residency is crucial to preserving theirs and other middle class neighborhoods in Boston. They fear that this contract will become a standard, or worse, a minimum threshold in ongoing negotiations with the more powerful police and fire fighters unions who might push for shorter requirements.

"For the last fourteen years I've listened to why we should undo residency because people couldn't afford to live in the city and yet an agreement is reached that when people are making the lowest salary they are going to live in Boston and when they start making money they can move out of Boston," said Feeney.

Carver, president of the Popes Hill Neighborhood Association, said that the city has a right to assume that its employees would want to invest economically and socially in the city where they are employs.

"Residency should not be a political football. It's a job requirement," said Carver.

At least one of Feeney's council colleagues, West Roxbury councillor John Tobin, praised the mayor for his willingness to amend residency and called it a positive step toward limiting or at least standardizing the residency requirement.

"I'm thrilled," said Tobin. "I think that the mayor saw the writing on the wall, saw that this is a this is a terrific city where people want to live and that the circumstances have changed."

Tobin called two city council hearings in the last year on residency and sponsored a city ordinance that would have limited the residency requirement to five years for all city employees. After a December hearing before the Government Operations committee then chaired by Feeney, Tobin decided not to advance the resolution to a general council vote because he did not have the support of a majority of his fellow councillors.

"We put a number out there, five years, that we thought was fair, but to be perfectly honest we would have been open to seven years or 10 years," said Tobin of his move to amend the residency policy. "I look at this agreement as a benchmark that all the unions will be offered."

Ed Kelly, president of the fire fighters local 718 and Tom Nee, president of the Boston Patrollmen's Association, did not return phone calls seeking comment this week.

Tobin also suggested that a tight budget had persuaded the administration to concentrate on fiscal priorities, particularly health care, and to use the politically prickly residency issue as a trade-off. In the proposed contract, AFSME members agreed to increase their health care payments from 10 to 15 percent of the total cost.

Joyce sought to portray the Mayor's new, lenient approach to residency as a reflection of an evolving, increasingly attractive city rather than as a bargaining chip.

"I don't think we use it as something to hang over people's heads," said Joyce. "The mayor continues to believe that residency and hiring Boston residents for Boston jobs is a priority. This is a more flexible policy, in terms of someone having been a committed employee to us for ten years."

Joyce acknowledged that controlling the cost of employee health care was a necessity for the city and Sam Tyler, president of the Municipal Research Bureau, an independent city watchdog, described it as an imperative.

"It is essential that there is a change immediately in the health care payer premium scale, otherwise any salary increase could be in jeopardy," said Tyler. "Last year a health insurance cost increase of $25 million represented half of the total budget increase for the city of Boston."

Tyler agreed with Tobin that the city appears to be testing residency as a bargaining tool, a method that Tyler said could prove effective. He added that he believes affordable housing and controlled property taxes are better methods of preserving a healthy middle class.

"In the scope of things I've never really agreed that there is an economic argument for residency," said Tyler. "In my mind it's more of a political argument."

Tyler also explained that removing residency from the bargaining table in negotiations between the city and employee unions &endash; as Carver, Feeney, and Tobin all advocated &endash; would require complicated State House legislation that could potentially involve a mandate to cover municipalities statewide.

Feeney said containing the residency debate was the responsibility of leaders at city hall.

"Whatever action this body [the city council] takes, I think it needs to be an action that results in an outcome, not just filing a resolution," said Feeney. "The state does not have control over this. This is something that is a matter for the city, not for the commonwealth of Massachusetts."