Request By:
Mr. Buford Taylor
Kettle, Kentucky 42752
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
On April 12, 1977, the Cumberland County Fiscal Court met in regular session and, pursuant to KRS 68.010, appointed the county judge's wife as county treasurer.
Of course the county judge can vote on any matter of county business coming before that body; and he can make motions and can second motions, even though he is the chairman. Barnett v. Gilbert, 164 Ky. 564, 175 S.W. 1029 (1915). We assume his wife meets the qualifications set forth in KRS 68.010(2).
The county treasurer is purely a ministerial officer and holds money deposited in the county treasury subject to orders of the fiscal court. KRS 68.020; and Cain v. Burroughs Adding Mach. Co., 180 Ky. 567, 203 S.W. 315 (1918).
We can find no statute which would prohibit such employment. KRS 61.220(1) prohibits any member of the fiscal court from becoming interested, directly or indirectly, in any claim against the county. However, we think the judge's interest in his wife's salary as such is rather speculative. Thus we cannot conclude that the judge's interest in his wife's salary would be sufficiently an indirect interest prohibited by the statute. In addition, the statute seems to strike at contracts involving direct or indirect interest. We doubt that the statute was designed to prohibit a claim arising out of regular county employment.
The case of Chadwell v. Commonwealth, 288 Ky. 644, 157 S.W.2d 280 (1941), involved a statute prohibiting a school board member from becoming interested, directly or indirectly, in any claim against the school board. There a school board member's son was hired as a school bus driver. In rejecting the argument that the board member, in helping make his son's hiring possible, had an interest in a prohibited claim, the court was of the opinion that the "legislature intended such interest to be confined to monetary considerations and that the consideration must be such as would move directly or indirectly to the board member himself, and not to include mere emotional interest that a member of the board might have in the person rendering the services." (Emphasis added).
We conclude that we can find no statute prohibiting the appointing of the county judge's wife as county treasurer, provided she has the statutory qualifications.
While the county judge can make motions, we believe that since he does have a "personal interest" in this matter, though not a financial interest as mentioned in KRS 61.220(1), he should have refrained from making the nomination and voting on the question. City of Springfield v. Haydon, 216 Ky. 483, 288 S.W. 337 (1926) 341. Thus the fiscal court at another meeting, if it wishes, could vote on this again. But the county judge should refrain from nominating his wife and should refrain from voting on his wife's employment.
Any prior opinions in conflict with this opinion are modified accordingly.