Disagreements over legislative procedures and the power of public officials ensued at the Covington Board of Commissioners’ caucus meeting Tuesday evening.
The debate arose when one commissioner, Nolan Nicaise, expressed frustration that legislative proposals he’d brought to the commission failed to make it onto the following week’s voting agendas, something that also occurred to proposals he’s made in the past.
“When any agenda item is brought up during our caucus meeting, it’s presented and then the language is ‘without objection it’s on consent,'” Nicaise said, referring to the procedures by which agenda items are presented at caucus meetings.
If a proposed agenda item is accepted by the commission, it’s either placed on the next meeting’s consent agenda–meaning the commissions will vote on it without additional discussion–or the regular agenda, meaning the commissioners will engage in further discussion before voting on the item. Ordinances, unlike resolutions and commission orders, must go through two public readings before being voted on.
Nicaise proposed three items on June 20.
The first item was a proposal to amend the Covington neighborhood development code to remove the minimum gross floor area for units in triplex and quadplex houses, a measure Nicaise argued would contribute to affordable housing availability in the city.
The second item he proposed was the installation of two speed humps along 42nd Street between Winston Avenue and Church Street. This proposal came as the result of a complaint from a member of the public, whose family member had been struck by a car on 42nd Street and sent to the intensive care unit. Nicaise had wanted to expedite the process of getting safety measures on the road installed in hopes of preventing more accidents.
The final item Nicaise presented was a proposal to mandate the installation of temporary walkways around construction projects that encroach upon public sidewalks. The commissioner cited construction sites on Garrard Street and Greenup Street, which he said did not have safe routes for walking around them. He argued that this posed a safety risk and placed unjust constraints on people with disabilities.
The first and third proposals were tabled pending reports and investigation from city staff. The second proposal failed to get a second from the other commission members, meaning that the commission would not entertain any vote on the issue at the legislative meeting next week.
Other members of the commission inquired as to whether Nicaise had consulted with members of the city’s professional staff when he made the proposals.
Nicaise’s responses were inconsistent. For instance, he had not consulted with the police department on the speed hump measure and learned from Police Chief Brian Valenti that the department had, in fact, performed a speed study on the street in May. The study did not show a pattern of speeding.
“During that speed study, there were 13,139 vehicles that were noted on that road,” Valenti said. “243 of those vehicles, that’s 2%, were actually in what we would consider an enforceable situation, which is about 10 miles an hour over the speed limit.
“Those types of numbers really don’t support that there’s a substantial speeding issue on the road,” Valenti added.
Commissioner Ron Washington also informed Nicaise that the police investigations had ruled that the pedestrian in the accident that prompted Nicaise’s proposal was at fault. Nicaise responded by saying the resident who brought the accident to the commission’s attention had cast doubt on the police’s investigation.
In any case, other commission members criticized Nicaise, contending that he had failed to both follow established governmental procedures and effectively communicate with city staff.
“In this position as an elected official, we are reliant upon our professional staff,” Washington said. “Since I’ve been part of this body, we trust their opinions on items. That does not mean that we have to do what they say. They do the leg work for us.”
The City of Covington operates on a city manager model of government, which is distinct from the more commonly used mayor-council model, in which executive power is centrally located in the position of the mayor and legislative power rests with council. Under the mayor-council model, the mayor often has a higher degree of decision-making power in the operation of a city than under the city manager model.
In the city manager model, legislative and executive power is more evenly distributed between the mayor and the four elected city commissioners. Although the mayor serves as the chair of the commission and other city committees, his vote is roughly equal to the other members of the commission.
Moreover, much of the day-to-day operation of the city falls not to the commissioners but to the city manager, who is appointed by the commission and has broad administrative power. The manager and other city staff often have advanced training in specific areas of expertise, such as zoning, law and finance. They are not elected.
Many of the proposed ordinances and other legislative measures that come before the commission are proposed by city staff members, who make proposals based on their experiences operating the city. Commissioners can also make proposals but to go to a vote at least one other commissioner must agree to examine, or second, the proposal.
Nicaise expressed frustration that some proposals seemed to make it through the process faster than others.
“When I bring up items, which I’ve done during one other meeting and this meeting, … it’s presented in a different way rather than ‘without objection it’s on consent.’ Is there a reason for that?” Nicaise asked.
“There’s a reason,” Washington said. “The reason is… because usually with legislation that is proposed, the members get with each other and they see… if they’re going to support the legislation.”
Washington said Nicaise tended not to communicate with other commissioners and city staff before proposing things.
“I would suggest trying to get to the members before you put things on the legislative calendar to see in general if there’s support for the item,” Washington said.
Nicaise, on the other hand, said that he was rarely consulted on legislation and felt cut out of the process.
“I don’t agree that everything is passed through all of the members of commission prior to getting on the agenda,” Nicaise said and asserted his ability to bring forth legislation.
Commissioner Tim Downing asked for permission to respond to Nicaise’s comments.
“May I?” Downing asked.
“No,” Mayor Joe Meyer said before turning to Nicaise.
“First, all of the members of the Commission get the agenda and all the materials at the exact same time,” Meyer said. “All of us do. We all have lengthy histories…. we have far more familiarity. We have a sense of where things are. It makes it easier for us to move on.”
“The second thing, in your situation, you absolutely have the right to bring forward any and all of these ideas you have,” Meyer continued. “That is completely within your purview. However, in order to be successful with moving it forward, you have to get at least one other member of the commission to agree with you. And that has to be done by interaction, by talking to people and by asking for their support for your specific proposals. If you don’t make an effort to get a second vote, you’re never gonna get anything put on the agenda for legislative action.”
Downing then tried to explain the difference in procedures between proposals submitted by the city manager and proposals from commission members.
“Now the difference between what [the city manager] has brought forward and what you have brought forward is that you are one member of the commission, and you’re trying to get support from the rest of the body,” Downing said. “He is bringing forward recommendations as the city manager for moving the city forward. There’s a difference there. So what he is bringing forward, we don’t need to do a first and a second.”
Nicaise took issue with these procedures.
“We should be first-ing and second-ing” proposals from non-elected officials, Nicasie said.
The rest of the commission did not share this view.
“The rules are the rules,” Downing said. “If you don’t like the rules, you can make proposals to change the rules, and that is fine.
“We are all operating by the same rules,” Downing continued, “and we need you to either get on board or make recommendations to change them.”
Nicaise did not respond.
At the end of the meeting, Commissioner Shannon Smith “applauded” Nicaise for his engagement but encouraged him to stick with established procedure or try to change it.
She also wondered if there were ways to make the process more uniform or predictable.
“Maybe there needs to be some measures that we as commissioners take when we introduce something on to the agenda to just include staff [and] let them know to have these conversations,” Smith said.
The next Covington Commission meeting will take place on June 27 at 6 p.m. in Covington City Hall on Pike Street.
To learn more about the different forms of municipal government in Kentucky and see which cities use which structure, consult the Kentucky League of Cities’ information page.
Correction: The original version of this story stated that Covington’s form of government was a city commission. This was not accurate, and the relevant lines have been edited. LINK nky apologizes for the error. –LINK nky editorial, June 27, 2023
