Request By:
Honorable Kelly D. Powell
City Attorney
City of Scottsville
P.O. Box 524
Scottsville, Kentucky 42164
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of January 28 in which you relate that Scottsville, a city of the fourth class, has adopted a civil service program pursuant to KRS 95.761 (3) that relates to second and third class cities under Ch. 90 KRS. Said ordinance was adopted in 1972. In October, 1979 the council amended the ordinance by adding the positions of chief of police, assistant chief of police and city superintendent [who is in charge of the city water, gas, sewer and street departments] to the classified civil service program under Ch. 90 KRS. The initial question raised is whether the supervisory positions can be included under the civil service program.
Our response to your question would be in the affirmative. KRS 95.761 (5) (a) clearly indicates that the chief of police and assistant chief of police may either be included or excluded from the classified service program. Also, the case of Turner v. Cole, Ky. App. 559 S.W.2d 170 (1977), indicates, as you point out, that the city council could have included the chief of police if it had used the phrase "officers as well as employes" under the civil service program. In this case the city had failed to used the word "officers" and therefore the chief of police had to be excluded.
The position of city superintendent is an administrative position which also could be included in the program under the definition of "employe" found in KRS 90.300 (1) (f). The term "employe" is defined to mean any person employed in the conduct of municipal affairs, including an administrative or directive position established by the city. There are certain exceptions named in the definition which would not include the position of superintendent.
You next raise the question as to whether the individuals holding the above named positions will be required to take a civil service examination pursuant to KRS 90.340 since they have held their position for one (1) year next preceding the 1979 amendment placing said positions under civil service.
Our response to the above question would be in the affirmative. KRS 90.340 reads as follows:
"Employes who at the time the provisions of KRS 90.310 to 90.410 are adopted by any city of the second or third class have been in the employ of that city for one (1) year last past shall not be required to stand an original examination, and shall be eligible for all the benefits provided by KRS 90.310 to 90.410. (Emphasis added.)
The above statute clearly states that those employes who were in the employ of the city for one (1) year next preceding the time the provisions of KRS 90.310 to 90.340 are adopted will not be required to stand an original examination. The provisions of KRS 90.310 to 90.340 were adopted by the city in 1972. The 1979 amendment placing the referred to positions in the civil service program could in no way constitute the adoption of the general civil service program by the city which was clearly in 1972. Thus service for one (1) year prior to 1979 would not be sufficient to exempt these individuals from taking the required civil service examination. In construing statutes simple words must be given their ordinary meaning and practical construction and cannot be given a strained interpretation for the purpose of effecting a result not contemplated by the legislature. See Baker v. White, 251 Ky. 691, 65 S.W.2d 1022 (1933); and Inter-Co. Rural Electric Co-op. Corp. v. Reeves, 294 Ky. 458, 171 S.W.2d 978 (1943). See also KRS 446.080.
Therefore, we believe that those persons holding the referred to positions will be required to take a civil service examination in order to qualify as members of the program.