Request By:
Honorable William P. Mulloy
Attorney at Law
Legal Arts Building
200 South Seventh Street
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of September 16 in which you request an opinion concerning the following:
"Pursuant to our telephone conversation, I am herewith addressing to you a request on behalf of myself as Chairman of the Finance Committee of the Hollenbach for County Judge campaign and on behalf of Judge Hollenbach himself for an official Attorney General's opinion at the earliest possible time concerning an interpretation of KRS 121.045. As I discussed with you on the telephone today, the inquiry that we need an immediate opinion, if that is possible, is (1) whether or not there is anything illegal or improprietous in a county employee contributing to the campaign of a County Judge who seeks reelection and (2) is there anything improprietous in an attorney who holds an appointive position in the County, such as a Probate Commissioner or a Trial Commissioner, contributing to a campaign of a County Judge candidate who seeks reelection. "
Our response to your initial question would be in the negative for the reasons set forth in OAG 77-40, a copy of which we are attaching.
Our response to your second question would also be in the negative based on the decision in the case of
Hatcher v. Petry, 261 Ky. 52, 86 S.W.2d 1043 (1937), as cited and explained in OAG 77-40. This case interpreted KRS 121.045 as prohibiting an employe from contributing to a candidate seeking an office in which the employe works and which will thereby place the candidate, if elected, in control of the employe's appointment or employment. It is true, of course, that under present law trial commissioners [which include so-called probate commissioners] are appointed by the county judge pursuant to KRS 28.280; however, beginning in January 1978, trial commissioners are appointed by the district judge pursuant to KRS 24A.120 (2) and in the manner prescribed in § 113 of the Constitution. This means of course that beginning with the 1978 regular term of the district courts, the county judge will no longer control the appointment of trial commissioners. As a consequence, the reelection of the present county judge to the office of county judge executive would not affect the present trial commissioner's future appointment as trial commissioner of the court and, therefore, would not give him the control referred to in the Hatcher case.
Thus, there would appear to be no violation of KRS 121.045 were the present trial commissioner to contribute to the campaign of the present county judge seeking reelection to the office of county judge executive.