Request By:
Mr. John R. Cox
Rowan County Attorney
P.O. Box 9
Morehead, Kentucky 40351
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
In your letter you raise questions relating to county government. We shall deal with them in the order presented.
Question No. 1:
"Can a fiscal court properly resolve that a county road department work 30 days only on bridges and culverts under the direction and supervision of the county judge/executive?"
The matter of road and bridge construction and maintenance addresses itself to the fiscal court as a body. KRS 67.083(3)(t) and 67.080(2)(b). The road programs, when so spelled out by resolution or order of fiscal court, must be executed by the county judge/executive. KRS 67.710. Normally the time element depends upon the construction or maintenance to be done. The fiscal court may establish a scheme of priority in connection with road and bridge programs. The fiscal court has a duty, in establishing programming of county road and bridge construction, reconstruction, or maintenance, to take a unified approach, with a countywide perspective.
Thompson v. Bracken County, Ky., 294 S.W.2d 943 (1956).
It is not necessary that the fiscal court order direct that road projects be conducted under the supervision of the county judge/executive. He is already entrusted with the overall executive supervision and administration of the local county road and bridge program. KRS 67.722 and 67.710.
Question No. 2:
"Can the county judge/executive override a fiscal court's order directing the county road foreman to be present at fiscal court meetings and report on the work completed for the 30 days past?"
The county road supervisor, or engineer, as the case may be [see KRS 179.020] has various statutory duties. See KRS 179.070, dealing with the general powers and duties of the engineer or road supervisor. KRS 179.070(4) provides that he shall make reports from time to time as the fiscal court directs. However, the statutory duties section has been amended, in effect, by KRS 67.722 and 67.710, which have vested the overall administration of the county road and bridge program in the county judge/executive. In reading these statutes together, i.e., KRS 179.070, 67.710 and 67.722, and in order to give effect to all of them, we conclude that since the overall supervision of the program is the responsibility of the county judge/executive, the road supervisor or engineer is required to carry out his technical road duties, but under the supervision of the county judge/executive. This simply means that when the fiscal court wants an engineer report on the program, the fiscal court should request the county judge/executive to have himself and the road supervisor present at the fiscal court meeting or meetings for purposes of the report and any discussion which may ensue.
While the substantive aspect of this matter is paramount in terms of meshing the statutory executive function of the county judge/executive with the road supervisor's technical role under the statutes, the protocol in this situation should likewise be observed, i.e., fiscal court should contact the county judge/executive about any necessary road or bridge reports, then he can make available at a meeting himself and the road supervisor.
Question No. 3:
"Can the county judge/executive properly recess rather than adjourn a fiscal court meeting in order to avoid a special meeting being called in the interim?"
The county judge/executive, alone, has no authority to recess the fiscal court. He is only one member, though he presides over that body. The fiscal court, as a body, can recess for some valid reason and where the issue cannot be resolved at that time. See KRS 67.090. The fiscal court can only act as a body.