From Monroe Street in Mexico, where Jim McDonald lives, the drive to Town Hall in Rumford is about two miles and should take about four minutes. McDonald is Rumford’s sealer of weights and measures, a job he may lose after Tuesday’s vote upheld the town’s charter that says the sealer must live in Rumford.

The charter says the same about the town manager, the plumbing inspector and the town’s auditor; the latter two and McDonald are probably going to lose their part-time jobs, while a fierce legal battle over the manager, Steve Eldridge, and his controversial contract is heading for judicial review.

The equipment McDonald uses to monitor weights and measures is owned by Rumford and Mexico, and he – for the moment – works for both towns. He told the Sun Journal it’s unclear how he’ll do his job for Mexico under this sharing agreement and he said, somewhat fatalistically, “A rule is a rule.”

The rule, it appears, is that Rumford and Mexico can share a machine, but not a man.

By a 2-1 margin, Rumford voters stuck with the status quo, even though it plunges the town’s administration into a litigious morass. And it’s all because of a border war, spiked by the notion that the right person for the job is wrong if that person lives outside Rumford.

For a state desperate for creative, regional solutions from its municipalities, Tuesday’s vote shows parochialism is still the preferred policy for Rumford. When even the most minor town officials – like McDonald – are discriminated against for living across the river in Mexico, there’s something wrong.

What an odd time for this stand, as well. None of the four officials restricted by charter to Rumford residency is new. McDonald’s 18 months of service is the shortest. Eldridge, of Monmouth, has been manager for two years. The plumbing inspector, of Bethel, has worked for Rumford since 1999, and the town’s auditor, of Hallowell, has minded the books for 13 years.

The charter, it appears, was a nonissue when they were hired. Yet Rumford politics have needlessly put their jobs in peril. If they weren’t the right person for the job, they should have been removed or never hired. Insted, they’re being penalized retroactively by a rule the town ignored in the first place.

Residency requirements, for most municipal jobs, are outdated. There’s little practicality for minor officials to live within a community, while clear benefits do exist for having emergency full-time employees like police or firefighters live close. For administrators, some towns insist on residency, others do not.

It’s nothing to lose a job over. Rumford’s selectmen would be wise to compromise and grandfather the three employees on the chopping block. The manager’s status, though, seems out of the selectman’s hands.

A residency radius would be a fine solution, and allow local people to continue serving the town without being subject to a restrictive 55-year-old requirement. Good governance doesn’t end at a town’s borders, and neither should eligibility for employment.