During my eight years as mayor, I have had the privilege of working with excellent commissioners and excellent staff to advance the interests of the city of Covington. We have a track record to be proud of: unprecedented economic growth across the city, reduced property tax rates, a greatly improved Brent Spence Bridge Corridor project, long-term stormwater issues being addressed, a new city ​​hall under construction, redevelopment of the IRS site is underway, national and even international recognition for the city’s achievements and much more.

We have achieved that record together, despite the structure of our government, not because of it. We have struggled with unclear lines of accountability, complicated internal communications, and an inefficiency that is intrinsic to the city manager’s form of government.

Opinion: The city manager form of government has served Covington well for more than 90 years

The inefficiencies of our system have not gone unnoticed. Covington residents organized Covington Forward and collected thousands of signatures to allow Covington voters to decide on Nov. 5 whether to replace the city manager form of government with the mayor-council form of government. They deserve our thanks.

Our city needs a structure that supports the continuous improvement of the city. Residents, like me, believe the best way to maintain the city’s momentum is to adopt the mayor-council form of government. All current elected members of the Board of Commissioners support the change. They have experienced the uncertainty of the city’s administrative structure and know we can do better.

The mayor-council form of government is familiar to us. Of the 26 Northern Kentucky cities with more than 1,000 residents, 23 use the mayor-council form. Independence, Florence, Erlanger, Fort Thomas, Fort Mitchell, Fort Wright, Villa Hills, Park Hills all use the mayor-council form. Kentucky’s largest cities, Louisville and Lexington, use a variation of the mayor-council form for their merged city and county governments. County tax courts use a version of the mayor-council form. The federal and state governments use a version of the mayor-council form of government. The city manager form of government is the outlier, used in Kentucky by only a handful of cities.

The advantages of the mayor-council form of government are simple:

• More receptive to the public. The city manager is not directly responsible to the voters. The mayor in the form of mayor-council is. When mistakes are made, for example theft of city money or bad financial audits, the mayor has to respond directly to the public at election time. The mayor will also be responsible to the city council. In fact, the city council can remove a mayor from office for egregious errors. City managers have built-in job protections and cannot be fired without a lengthy legal process that requires a lot of time, attention and money.

• There is a clear chain of command in the form of mayor-council. Who is really the boss under the city manager form of government? The city manager? Not precisely. The mayor? No. The Board of Commissioners, yes, but not really. The city manager will say he has five bosses and they all ask for different things, so how can they decide? The public already knows how difficult it is to find the right party in city government to talk to about problems or suggestions. City employees know the “rule of three.” Under the mayor-council form, all city staff, including the city administrator (manager), will have one boss, not five. I think even city administrators will breathe a sigh of relief when they have a single, clearly identified boss to report to.

• Greatly improved efficiency. Over the past eight years, more than 91% of all Covington Commission decisions have involved executive functions. The city manager form requires the board of commissioners to approve everything in both their legislative and executive capacities. In its legislative capacity, the commission approves the budget. Then, in its executive capacity, the commission has to approve the execution of the budget, the purchase of equipment or contracts that they already approved in the budget, for example. Every personnel action, from hiring to promotions, transfers, resignations and retirements, must be approved by the city commission. In my eight years, there was only one of hundreds of professional management staff recommendations that were not approved by the commission. This slows down the decision-making process, costs staff a lot of time and money, introduces unnecessary risk into the hiring process, and reduces the amount of time the commission spends on issues important to city residents. In the mayor-council form, all such executive decisions will be handled by the mayor and the administration in the normal course of business, subject to review by the city council for compliance with the budget and policy determinations of the council. .

• More representation. The municipal commission will grow from four to at least six members. More residents will be elected decision makers and will have the opportunity to raise the concerns of their fellow city residents. Council members will focus on issues important to citizens, public policy, the budget and oversight of the executive function without the conflict of interest inherent in the city manager form of government.

• Clear leadership. The mayor will go from being the ceremonial leader to being a clearly identified leader who can speak and act on behalf of the city. Under the current form of government, I am officially a ceremonial leader with no real authority to speak on behalf of the city government. Yes, I have to be very careful when I speak, even to the President of the United States or the Secretary of the United States Department of Transportation or the Governor. In today’s world, the mayor must have the actual authority to speak on behalf of the city with governors, state officials, and even presidents and national officials, and other regional leaders. The mayor under the mayor-council form of government will have that authority.

Significantly, most of Covington’s former city commissioners and mayors still in this area and a former city manager have backed the change. They know from experience that the current system is not working and needs change. They believe that the mayor-council form will be better.

Every outside organization that has discussed the change has supported it: the Latonia Business Association, the Covington Business Council, the Northern Kentucky Labor Council, the NAACP and the chairs of the Democratic and Republican executive committees. These organizations represent a wide range of often competing interests, but they are all on the same page: the change to the mayor-council form of government will benefit the city of Covington and its residents.

I am honored to have served as mayor of Covington for the past eight years. I will be retiring at the end of this year, so I have no personal interest in this topic. I have watched Covington city government for decades and have been mayor since 2016. I truly believe that it is best for the people of this city and the government of this city to make the change to the mayor-council form to better ensure that The progress of recent years will continue.

I encourage you to support the change. Vote “yes” on Covington’s public question to adopt the mayor-council form of government.

Joseph U. Meyer is the mayor of Covington.

This article originally appeared in the Cincinnati Enquirer: Opinion: Mayor and council form a better way to govern Covington