Request By:
Mr. Gardner D. Wagers
Clark County Judge/Executive
Courthouse
P.O. Box 5
Winchester, Kentucky 40391
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
The county jail was closed on November 7, 1980, at the beginning of the newly appointed jailer's term (the elected jailer resigned), for capital improvements. The fiscal court directed that he be trained by the state and that he oversee all of the capital improvements which are now being done at the jail. You write that the new jailer has been meeting with architects, engineers, contractors, etc., to see that the work is being done properly. In addition, he has been taking applications and interviewing prospective deputies, and has also been working on almost a daily basis with state officials. The new jailer is also working on a procedures manual which you requested him to prepare prior to the reopening of the jail on January 1, 1981.
Since the jail will be closed from November 7, 1980, to January 1, 1981, the jailer will have no fees during that period. The fiscal court, however, directed that he be paid the jailer's salary at the regular rate. He is to be paid from the fine money which the county receives from district court.
Your first question is whether the payment of a salary to the jailer during the closing of the jail is legal.
KRS 24A.175 relates to court fines and costs in criminal cases in district court. Subsection (5) of that statute provides that the circuit clerk shall, at the time fines and costs are paid over to the state, pay five dollars ($5.00) from each court cost collected pursuant to subsection (1) to the county treasurer for use by the fiscal court "for the sole purpose of defraying the costs of operation of the county jail. " (Emphasis added).
A cardinal principle in government is that a public officer is not entitled to fees or other compensation for services not actually rendered. See KRS 64.410(2), and
Webster County v. Vaughn, Ky., 365 S.W.2d 109 (1963) 110. To put it another way, an officer may be paid for services actually rendered. Assuming from the facts given that the new jailer is putting in at least a normal five-day work week, we are of the opinion that his compensation during the period described is legal.
Next, the question is whether or not the regular jailer's salary may be paid to the new jailer during the period described out of the cost money described above in KRS 24A.175(5).
Since the new jailer's services or activities relate exclusively to the county jail operation, it is our opinion that the phrase "operation of the county jail" is broad enough to embrace the jailer's services performed during this period. The "operation of the jail" is broad enough to cover the period during which the jail is being repaired and the new jailer is preparing himself to adequately perform as jailer once the jail is reopened. The repair of the jail is vital to its effective use as a place of detention. Therefore, the repair period must logically fall within the ambit of jail operations. In this manner we believe we are giving the statute a practical construction in harmony with and implementative of the legislative purpose.