header-left
File #: 0213-2004    Version: 1
Type: Ordinance Status: Passed
File created: 1/21/2004 In control: Rules & Reference Committee
On agenda: 2/2/2004 Final action: 2/4/2004
Title: To repeal existing Sections 161.06, 161.07 and 161.08 of the Columbus City Codes, 1959, to eliminate employment provisions relating to a loyalty oath.
Sponsors: Maryellen O'Shaughnessy
Explanation

Existing Section 161.06 of the Columbus City Codes, 1959, requires all elected officers of the City, as well as all other City officers and employees, to execute an affidavit or affirmation commonly referred to as a "loyalty oath." This oath generally requires the individual to deny membership in, or affiliation with, any group of persons that "practice, or teach, advocate or encourage the overthrow or destruction by force, violence, or other unlawful means any government in the United States.." Sections 161.07 and 161.08 require such oath as a precondition of employment and mandate the discharge of current employees for refusing to execute the oath or for becoming a member of or affiliated with such a group. Originally enacted in 1949, the constitutionality of these anachronistic provisions under current law is questionable, at best. Moreover, they serve no useful purpose in light of other oath requirements and current employment law dealing with unlawful behavior generally. For these reasons, in addition to the substantial administrative burden adherence would impose, these provisions need to be repealed.

FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact associated with the passage of this legislation.



Title

To repeal existing Sections 161.06, 161.07 and 161.08 of the Columbus City Codes, 1959, to eliminate employment provisions relating to a loyalty oath.


Body

WHEREAS, the Columbus City Codes, 1959, were amended in 1949 to include a "loyalty oath" requirement and provisions dealing the consequences for non-compliance with that requirement; and

WHEREAS, decisions of the United States Supreme Court rendered subsequent to the enactment of the "loyalty oath" provisions bring the constitutionality of these provisions into serious question; and

WHEREAS, these provisions serve no useful purpose in light of other oath requirements and current employment law dealing with unlawful behavior, generally; and

WHEREAS, adheren...

Click here for full text