Request By:
Mr. E. K. O'Bryan
Johnson County Board Member
Asa Road
Leander, Kentucky 41228
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Robert L. Chenoweth, Assistant Attorney General
As a member of the Johnson County Board of Education you have asked the Office of the Attorney General for an opinion on an assortment of questions. The four questions you have presented for our consideration are as follows:
"Can a pro-baseball team be allowed to use the school's baseball facilities preventing the students use of those facilities?
Can a Superintendent ask for a new contract of four (4) years while there is still one (1) year left on the previous contract?
Can the board members be ask to approve the payment of all invoices pertaining to the operating of the school system and the invoices not be present for review and approval?
Can one board member request an audit of the financial records and if so who will bear the expense?"
In answer to your first question, there are two sections of school law to be reviewed. Under KRS 160.290 (1) and (2), copy attached, each board of education has the responsibility and power to manage and control the school property located within its district. This statute assigns to the board the duty of utilizing school property for the purpose of promoting education within the district in such ways as the board deems necessary and proper. It is authorized and directed to make and adopt rules and regulations to this end. See OAG 60-389.
The second school statute is KRS 162.050 which reads as follows:
"The board of education of any school district may permit the use of the schoolhouse, while school is not in session, by any lawful public assembly of educational, religious, agricultural, political, civic or social bodies under rules and regulations which the board deems proper."
From this latter statute, when combined with KRS 160.290, we believe it can be determined that the use of the school facilities is subject to the determination of a local board of education. We further believe it paramount that the board adopt rules and regulations regarding the permitting of the use of school property so that such use does not in any way interfere with the conducting of any school program, curricular or co-curricular. That such is the intent of these statutes is further bolstered by the provisions of KRS 160.293, copy attached, which authorizes procedures through which an agreement may be reached for using school property for community recreational purposes. One of the requirements for such an agreement is that "the property must be used in such a manner and at such time so that there will be no interference with school activities. " KRS 160.293(1).
Therefore, in view of the above, we believe the local board of education may not permit the use of any school facilities that interferes with school activities.
Your second question presents the issue of the earliest time at which a local superintendent of schools' contract may be renewed. The relevant statute regarding this question is KRS 160.350. This section of the statutes and questions similar to the one you have raised have been considered in prior opinions of this office. See, for example, OAG 73-743, copy attached. Although the duration of the existing contract terms may not be changed, the board of education membership that will be in office at the time a new contract term is to be established may agree in advance to enter into a contract with an individual to be the superintendent. Thus, if the current superintendent's contract expires in June of this year or the next, the board may agree now to contract with an individual as superintendent for one, two, three or four years starting July 1, 1979, or starting July 1, 1980. Since the next school board election is not until November 1980, the present board members' positions will be in office at the time the new contract term would be commencing.
As to your third question, we again refer you to KRS 160.290, supra. This section also provides that local boards of education are to have the legal responsibility for the management and control of all school funds. This responsibility covers general as well as internal or activity account monies. See 702 KAR 3:130, Section 2, copy attached. We are therefore pursuaded that it is a very inadvisable practice for a school board to approve payment and use of school money without full knowledge concerning the propriety of the expense. We also bring to your attention in this regard the regulation dealing with local school board check-issuing policy, 702 KAR 3:040, copy attached.
We believe the answer to your fourth and last question is that one member of a board of education has absolutely no authority to act on his or her own. A local board of education is a "body politic and corporate" (KRS 160.160) and may transact business only when a majority to constitute a quorum is present at a properly held meeting (KRS 160.270). Thus, one board member has no authority to cause an audit to be conducted of the school's financial records.