Request By:
Honorable Willard B. Paxton
Attorney for Caldwell County
School Board
209 W. Main Street
Princeton, Kentucky 42445
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Robert L. Chenoweth, Assistant Attorney General
As the attorney for the Board of Education of Caldwell County you have asked the Office of the Attorney General to consider the application of KRS 160.180 to facts involving a school board member-elect. The facts are that the spouse of a school board member-elect is a physician who has in the past served as team physician for the Caldwell County varsity athletic teams. The spouse has occasionally received payment from the schools' insurance carrier for treatment of student athletes' injuries but the physician has been donating the payments received to the schools' athletic department. The physician has received no compensation for routine medical services to the athletes. You indicated further that most of the insurance premiums are paid by the school system.
You further related that the spouse of the school board member-elect also serves as family doctor for one or more school bus drivers employed by the Caldwell County schools. Each driver is required to have a current physical examination for which the school system pays a set fee. The bus driver selects a physician, schedules a physical, and has the bill sent to the school system for payment.
The questions you have presented based upon the above set of facts are as follows:
1. Pursuant to KRS 160.180, may the spouse of a school board member furnish professional services as team physician for the school system if he receives reimbursement from the system's insurance carrier for treatment of injuries received by team members?
2. Would the physician's donation of said insurance payments to the school system's athletic fund remove any violation of KRS 160.180?
3. Without violating KRS 160.180, may the spouse of a school board member receive compensation from school funds for performing a physical examination required of school bus drivers if he has been selected to perform said examination by the bus dirver and not by the school system?
It is our opinion the answer to each of your three questions is "no."
This office has had the occasion to render several advisory opinions on the issue principally involved in your questions before. See OAG 78-365, 75-358 and 68-250, copies attached. The common thread running through each of the opinions is that a board member himself or herself or the board member's spouse may not have a contractual or other relationship with the school board of education for which school funds are expended. KRS 160.180(1)(f), (2). Under the present circumstances, if the insurance premiums are paid for with school money, whether general account money or activity account money, the spouse of the board member-elect may not receive such money in payment for medical services rendered. Note 702 KAR 3:130 and Board of Education of Anderson County v. Calvert, Ky., 321 S.W.2d 413 (1959). What the physician would do with the money once received is immaterial in looking to see whether a disqualifying act has occurred under KRS 160.180. Thus, a donation of the money received by the physician back to the school does not remove the violation of this statute.
As to the bus driver situation, even though the individual driver may choose the physician-spouse of a board member, the debtor-creditor relationship is between the school system and the physician and not the physician and bus driver. Therefore, we believe the proscription of KRS 160.180 would apply in this situation also.