Request By:
Mr. Vic Hellard, Jr.
Director
Legislative Research Commission
Capitol Building
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; BY: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
KRS 61.784 directs that the membership of the Financial Disclosure Commission include a member of the General Assembly. It further directs that the member of the General Assembly be compensated as set forth in KRS 7.090(2), which provides for a compensation of $65 per diem plus expenses. Under KRS 61.784(3), the non-public officer or employee members are compensated at the rate of $100 per day and expenses.
However, H.B. 200, 1982 Session, amends KRS 61.070, and provides in part that a member of the General Assembly serving on a board or commission shall receive the same compensation in the same manner as any other member of the board or commission. That act becomes effective July 15, 1982.
The first question is: What is the effect of H.B. 200 as relates to KRS 61.784?
It is our opinion that H.B. 200, amending KRS 61.070 to provide for equal pay for all board or commission members, governs over KRS 61.784(3), by implication, since it is the later legislation. In
Butcher v. Adams, 310 Ky. 205, 220 S.W.2d 398 (1949), the court observed that "It is an elementary rule of statutory interpretation that whenever in the statutes on any particular subject there are apparent conflicts which cannot be reconciled, the later statute controls." While there is a case principle that the specific governs over the general, that cannot apply here since the more specific contains the unconstitutional element referred to above which cannot be enforced. Cf.
City of Bowling Green v. Board of Education, Ky., 443 S.W.2d 243 (1969).
Next, you ask whether the affected members of the General Assembly serving on the Commission would be entitled retroactively to make up the difference in pay?
It is our opinion that H.B. 200 is to be applied prospectively only. KRS 446.080(3) provides that "no statute shall be construed to be retroactive, unless expressly so declared." (Emphasis added). H.B. 200 contains no such express declaration of retroactivity.
The next question reads as follows:
From whose funds is the member of the general assembly to be compensated? Is he to be compensated from funds of the legislative research commission or is he to be compensated from the funds of the financial disclosure commission?
In answer to the last question, in the absence of a statutory direction to the contrary, the commission member who is a member of the General Assembly should be paid from L.R.C. funds. KRS 61.784(3) and 7.090(2) together direct that they be paid from L.R.C. funds.
Under the foregoing analysis we see no reason why we should go into the constitutional question relating to the past.