Request By:
Mr. Jack C. Goins
Franklin County Judge
Courthouse
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
The question in your letter reads as follows:
"May the Franklin County Fiscal Court reimburse the Franklin County Commonwealth Attorney for expenditures incurred in the purchasing of law books, which would be considered County property and be passed on to successive holders of the office?"
As you point out, under KRS 69.010(2), the commonwealth's attorney is precluded from engaging in the private practice of law. Therefore his entire practice is devoted to the duties of his public office.
Fiscal courts were authorized under KRS 64.500 to appropriate money for the circuit judge's books, among other things. That statute was repealed by Acts of 1976 [Ch. 83, § 19]. We note that KRS 64.510(1)(c) provides that counties may contribute financially to the commonwealth's attorney's office as it was permitted to do for circuit judges under KRS 64.500. However, judicial circuits containing a city of the second class are excepted from the provisions of KRS 64.510(1)(c).
However, it is our opinion that the fiscal court may reimburse the Franklin County Commonwealth's Attorney for expenditures incurred in purchasing of law books pursuant to the broad powers enumerated in KRS 67.083 [Home Rule statute]. That statute permits the fiscal court to enact ordinances, which the fiscal court shall deem requisite for the health, education, safety, welfare and convenience of the inhabitants of the county. It is our view that the subject legal library [law books] used by the commonwealth's attorney in the prosecution of crime immediately and directly bears upon the public welfare and public safety of the citizens of Franklin County. See
Nichols v. Henry, 301 Ky. 435, 191 S.W.2d 930 (1946); and Industrial Develop. Auth. v. Eastern Ky. Reg. P1. Com'n, Ky., 332 S.W.2d 274 (1960) 276, 277, on the matter of the constitutional necessity for spending public money for a public purpose. Also See §§ 3 and 171, Kentucky Constitution. As we just said, we think the public purpose to be subserved is clearly evident in this situation. In addition, in connection with a fiscal court order or ordinance authorizing this reimbursement for law books, we see no conflict with any constitutional or statutory section.
Of course, any such order or ordinance of fiscal court is subject to proper budgeting procedure as outlined in KRS Chapter 68. Further, such should state, as you suggest, that such law books will be considered to be county property, which may be used by the successive holders of that office.