Request By:
Hon. John A. Hartman
Counsel for Grant County
Board of Education
24 North Main Street
Walton, Kentucky 41094
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Robert L. Chenoweth, Assistant Attorney General
As counsel for the Grant County Board of Education, you have asked the Office of the Attorney General for an opinion regarding a claim for reimbursement that has been presented by the superintendent of schools to the board. The factual background to the claim in question was presented in your letter as follows:
"The Grant County Superintendent during the recent severe winter weather was using his personal vehicle for travel between his office and one of the adjacent school facilities, which is a distance of about one mile from his office. The superintendent explains that his use of his personal vehicle was because Board owned vehicles were not convenient or available for use at the time. During the course of his travels between his office and the school facility, on school business, he slipped upon the ice and damaged his personal vehicle to the extent of in excess of $150.00. Although the superintendent maintains insurance upon his personal vehicle, he has presented a claim to the Board of Education for payment. The question presented:"
You have asked whether under these facts the Grant County Board of Education may legally pay the claim for reimbursement. We are of the opinion that the board may not legally pay the claim.
In support of our conclusion we refer you to KRS 160.410 which states:
"A board of education may pay the necessary expenses of its superintendent and other employes when such expenses are incurred on order of the board." (Emphasis supplied)
The language emphasized above is of critical importance in considering the facts under consideration herein. As we understand the facts, the using of the superintendent of school's personal car on school business was not considered and approved by the board prior to the use. This being the situation, no expenses incurred by the superintendent in the use of his personal car for school business was "incurred on order of the board."
Our construction of KRS 160.410 is supported, we believe, by the decisions of the
Kentucky Court of Appeals in Beauchamp v. Snider, 170 Ky. 220, 185 S.W. 868 (1916) and
Leslie County v. Hoskins, 175 Ky. 821, 195 S.W. 142 (1917). The Court in the Hoskins case, relying upon its decision in the Beauchamp case, stated at 195 S.W. 144:
"It is there held that the county board of education has no right or authority to appropriate any of the school funds in the hands of the treasurer, for the payment of expenses of that officer (superintendent), except where the expenses have been passed upon and agreed to by the board of education before it is incurred, and an appropriation of funds otherwise is unlawful."
It is interesting to note that in the Beauchamp case the superintendent of schools was found not to be entitled to the expense of livery bill for a horse and buggy which expense had not been authorized through appropriate actions of the board.
Finally, we would invite your consideration to the closely parallel provisions of KRS 160.280 relative to board members incurring expenses. Also see OAG 76-329, copy attached.