State law requires that elected officials must live in the community they serve, but what about the people they appoint? Should high-ranking city or county officials be residents as well?

In Bethlehem, some cabinet level officials and department heads live in Allentown, Bangor and Bucks County. In Easton, one cabinet official lives in Bethlehem. In Northampton County, most of John Brown's appointed cabinet officials live in Allentown or even New Jersey.

Should that change?

Five members of Northampton County Council think so. By a 5-4 vote at their Aug. 21 meeting, they passed an ordinance that will require all cabinet level officials, as well as row officers, to reside within the county, or move there within one year after appointment. This ordinance is prospective, meaning it has no application to current appointees.

Will Executive Brown will veto the ordinance? He's thinking about it.

"We are currently evaluating the impact this change will have on the county," Brown said. "We are also evaluating all of our options to determine what is the best course of action for the county moving forward."

If he does veto, six votes will be needed to override it.

Northampton County's Home Rule Charter, effective since 1978, requires all elected officials to have lived in the county for at least one year before taking office. It also mandates that appointees to boards and authorities be county residents. But it imposes no such requirement on row officers and cabinet officials.

The ordinance impacts the following county positions: sheriff; solicitor; public defender; coroner; register of wills; recorder of deeds; clerks of civil and criminal division; and directors of administration, fiscal affairs, public works, court services, human services, corrections, human resources and community and economic development. Any future appointments must be current county residents, or agree to establish residency within one year after their appointment.

Scott Parsons, the council member who sponsored this ordinance, believes this omission is "just an oversight," though Glenn Geissinger said he believes the opposite and wished that some charter historians, like former Executive Gerald Seyfried, had been at the meeting.

Leading the charge for the residency requirement was Lamont McClure, who spoke three times in support of the ordinance.

"The people who govern you ought to be your neighbors," he reasoned.

But Seth Vaughn countered that it is "overbureaucratic [sic] nonsense" that creates "more of a headache for the executive." Hayden Phillips added it "needlessly limits the pool of talent." He pointed to recently hired Sheriff David Dalrymple, a New Jersey resident, as an example.

Peg Ferraro cites the political reality that most cabinet level officials come and go with the executive, and few will want to move into a job that might only last four years.

"I strongly believe we have an excellent system in place," she reasoned.

Republican Mat Benol claimed to have always supported a residency requirement. Ironically, it was Benol who argued in July that council should confirm Dalrymple as sheriff despite his New Jersey residency. At that time, he had noted that Dalrymple only lived five miles from the courthouse.

Benol provided the swing vote that all four Democrats needed to pass the ordinance. The remaining four Republicans were opposed.

Contacted after the meeting, Seyfried said there's an inconsistency between the Home Rule Charter and Administrative Code.

The Administrative Code provides that the Retirement Board must include the directors of finance and administration. The Home Rule Charter requires that board appointees be county residents. But if these directors reside outside the county, can they still serve? Under the John Stoffa administration, his directors of finance and administration, both Lehigh County residents, were forced off the board for that reason.