Request By:
Ed Burtner
Woodland Hills
Harlan, Kentucky 40831
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of November 2, in which you, on behalf of the City of Harlan, request an opinion on the following:
"Assuming a legally binding resignation by a Mayor of a City of the Fourth Class, how is a permanent replacement elected and named? How long does the new permanent Mayor serve?
"Assuming your response to the first question is that the Council elects one from among themselves for the unexpired term of the resigning Mayor and assuming a seven (7) member Council then may a Council member vote for himself if nominated and the vote is split three (3) for and three against his election? If the deadlock over the replacement persists must the seventh member vote to break the deadlock? "
In response to your initial question, any vacancy which occurs in the Office of Mayor in a city of the fourth class must be filled temporarily by the city council pursuant to KRS 86.240. This vacancy, however, must be filled by election for the unexpired term, if such exists, in compliance with Section 152 of the Kentucky Constitution. Since, however, the term for mayor will expire in January, 1980, and there must be a regular election for a full term in November of 1979, whoever is appointed to fill the vacancy will serve for the remainder of the term.
In response to your second question, a city council, in filling the vacancy in question, is authorized to appoint any qualified person and, as a consequence, is not required to select a member of the city council to hold this position. The council may, on the other hand, select such a person which, in turn would create a vacancy on the city council that would have to be filled by appointing in the same manner as the vacancy in the office of mayor.
Your question concerning the right of the councilman selected to fill the vacancy in the office of mayor to vote for himself must be answered in the affirmative. There would be no conflict of interest or incompatibility where an individual votes for himself for a public office under our Constitution or statutes. Referring to Robert's Rules of Order, Section 44, we find the following:
"The rule on abstaining from voting on a question of direct personal interest does not mean that a member is prevented from voting for himself for an office or other position to which members generally are eligible, . . ."