Bill Overview
Title: District of Columbia National Guard Commanding General Residency Act
Description: This bill requires the commanding general of the District of Columbia National Guard to reside in the District of Columbia.
Sponsors: Del. Norton, Eleanor Holmes [D-DC-At Large]
Target Audience
Population: The Commanding General of the District of Columbia National Guard
Estimated Size: 1
- The bill specifies a residency requirement for the commanding general of the DC National Guard.
- The commanding general is typically a single role at any given time so the immediate direct impact is limited to this individual.
- The indirect impact might be felt more broadly amongst candidates for this position, particularly those who do not reside in DC currently, as it may affect their eligibility for the role.
- The DC National Guard operates for the benefit of Washington D.C., but the bill itself doesn't directly impact the servicemen and women who make up the Guard.
Reasoning
- The policy directly affects a very narrow group of people due to its specificity to the commanding general position, usually occupied by a single individual at a time.
- Indirect effects are primarily limited to potential candidates for the role who might reside outside of D.C. and have preferences regarding relocation.
- Broader population impacts are minimal as general U.S. citizens and National Guard members are not affected by the residency requirement.
- Considering the small scope of direct impact, the budget is likely sufficient to support the relocation costs for the commanding general if they need to move to D.C.
- The effect on wellbeing from this policy is mostly related to career opportunities and personal logistics for the individual holding or vying for this role.
Simulated Interviews
Military Officer (Virginia)
Age: 55 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm personally involved with the National Guard, so any change can be significant. However, this act doesn't directly affect my daily duties. It's more of a logistical requirement for the commanding general.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Military Strategist (New York)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I appreciate knowing the requirements upfront but relocating to D.C. is a significant move that could deter me from applying for the role.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 7 |
National Guard Commanding General (District of Columbia)
Age: 46 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 9
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 1/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I already reside in D.C., so this policy isn't a major issue for me personally. It could have been a significant challenge if I were living elsewhere.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 2 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 3 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 5 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 10 | 9 | 9 |
| Year 20 | 9 | 9 |
Retired Military (California)
Age: 50 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This does not impact my current life or decisions. However, I see how it could limit geographic flexibility for top candidates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Policy Analyst (Maryland)
Age: 38 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 12/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Residency requirements can be effective for ensuring commitment to an area but could limit the pool of potential candidates significantly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Public Official (D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I see the benefit in having our National Guard leader living within the district for quick response times during emergencies.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Retired National Guard General (Florida)
Age: 60 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- While I was never opposed to moving, such policies do add another layer to decision-making about applying for these positions.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Military Education Specialist (Texas)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Educational programs should prepare candidates for practical issues like relocation requirements, but this policy will not affect my role directly.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Lawyer (Ohio)
Age: 37 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Such residency requirements often raise questions about equal opportunity for service roles with their legal implications.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 7 | 7 |
Military Family Advocate (North Carolina)
Age: 48 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 0.0 years
Commonness: 11/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It's important to consider the family impact of residency moves for military leadership roles.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 10 | 8 | 8 |
| Year 20 | 8 | 8 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $50000 (Low: $20000, High: $100000)
Year 2: $50000 (Low: $20000, High: $100000)
Year 3: $50000 (Low: $20000, High: $100000)
Year 5: $50000 (Low: $20000, High: $100000)
Year 10: $50000 (Low: $20000, High: $100000)
Year 100: $50000 (Low: $20000, High: $100000)
Key Considerations
- The Residency Act applies solely to the commanding general, hence the fiscal implications are minimal.
- Potential costs could emerge if relocation is required for any new commanding general who resides outside the District of Columbia.
- The policy does not create new positions or responsibilities, minimizing its financial impact.