Request By:
Mr. Forrest E. Cook
Attorney at Law
118 Hays Street
P.O. Drawer 909
Whitesburg, Kentucky 41858
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Robert L. Chenoweth, Assistant Deputy Attorney General and Chief Counsel
As the attorney for the Board of Education of Letcher County, you have asked the Office of the Attorney General for an opinion on two separate, but related, questions:
"1. Is it legal for a Board of Education to pay salaries and/or expenses -- including travel, lodging, meals, and substitute teachers -- for teachers to attend:
"(a) business sessions of their respective professional organizations such as the Kentucky Education Association,
"(b) training and professional improvement meetings conducted by their professional organization; and/or
"(c) lobbying activitieis conducted to their organization, KEA, and/or its Political Action Committee?
"(2) Is it legal for a Board of Education to pay salaries and/or expenses -- including travel, lodging, and meals for school administrators to attend:
"(a) business sessions of their irespective professional organizations such as the Kentucky Association of School Administrators, Association for Curriculum Development, Secondary and Elementary Principal Associations, and Guidances Associations,
"(b) training and professional improvement meetings conducted by their professional organization and accreditation associations to which their schools or districts belong such as the Southern Association of Colleges and Schools, and/or
"(c) lobbying activities conducted by their professional associations?"
It is the formal opinion of the Office of the Attorney General the answer to each of your questions is in the affirmative.
We turn first to Kentucky school law provisions but inescapably must in due course get to Kentucky's constitution regarding education. KRS 156.190 provides as follows:
"The superintendent of public instruction may call and conduct conferences of boards of education, superintendents, supervisors, principals, teachers, attendance officers and other regular public school employes, on matters relating to the condition, need and improvement of the schools. Personal traveling expenses incurred by those attending conferences called by the superintendent of public instruction shall be a legitimate public expense and may be paid by boards of education. "
Also, germane to your questions is KRS 160.410 which reads:
"A board of education may pay the necessary expenses of its superintendent and other employes when such expenses are incurred on order of the board."
Additionally, KRS 158.070(1), in pertinent part, directs that:
". . . In setting the school calendar, school shall be closed for two (2) consecutive days for the purpose or permitting professional school employes to attend statewide professional meetings. These two (2) days for statewide professional meetings shall be scheduled to begin with the first Thursday after Easter or upon request of the statewide professional educational association having the largest paid membership, the superintendent of public instruction may designate alternate dates. Furthermore, the superintendent of public instruction shall designate one (1) additional day during the school year when schools shall be closed for the purpose of permitting professional school employes to participate in regional or district professional meetings. These three (3) days so designated for attendance at professional meetings shall not be counted as a part of the minimum school term."
And lastly, KRS 160.290(1) generally authorizes each board of education to use school funds "to promote public education in such ways as it deems necessary and proper."
From the above referenced statutory provisions we believe it is clear that within reason, school boards are permitted to bear the direct and indirect expenses incurred by teachers and administrators who attend, after prior approval by the board, professional activities and functions. We do not, however, believe school boards are wholly unfettered in exercising their discretion in approving or not attendance at sundary professional activities. This is where Kentucky Constitution's sections 180 and 184 come into play. These sections provide that school funds may be used only for school purposes. In Board of Educatiton of Spencer County v. Spencer County, Levee, Flood Control and Drainage District, 230 S.W.2d 81 (1950), the former Court of Appeals stated the test was whether the expenditure was for an educational purpose rather than whether an activity might be beneficial to education.
Thus, we believe each board of education must consider whether the expenses to be incurred for various teacher or administrator professional activities can successfully pass the above referenced constitutional test. The Court of Appeals has been of some assistance in this regard with its decision in Schuerman v. State Board of Education, 284 Ky. 556, 145 S.W.2d 42 (1940). In this case the Court was considering the legality of the expenditure of school monies by local school districts for the annual membership dues of the Kentucky School Boards Association. The Court stated at page 45:
". . . [i]t is apparent that the power conferred by Section 4399-20 (now KRS 160.290), Kentucky Statutes, is sufficiently broad to authorize the expenditures, the propriety of which is the subject of this litigation. However, the powers conferred by the Statute are necessarily limited by the express inhibitions imposed by the Constitution, with the result that the discretion vested in boards of education to expend school monies is subject to the restriction that such expenditures must be for purposes of common school education. In ascertaining what is and is not a proper expenditure under this restriction, we know of no better test to be applied than that outlined in the quoted exerpt [sic] from our opinion in the Simmons case, namely: Is the contemplated expenditure for the interest of the schools comprising the districts making the expenditure? "
The Court went on to say it believed the Kentucky School Boards Association membership dues did serve a legitimate educational purpose for a school district because of "the opportunities offered by membership. "
The Office of the Attorney General has also had the opportunity to consider kindred inquiries. In OAG 65-365, copy attached, we concluded it would be a proper expenditure of school funds to pay for the employment of a substitute teacher to fulfill the duties of a teacher who is absent due to attendance at a professional meeting. In contrast, in OAG 74-873, copy attached, we disapproved the expenditure of school money to pay the dues and luncheon costs of school personnel attending service club meetings such as Rotary, Lions, Optimist, etc.
In view of the above, we are of the formal opinion that each local board of education should consider establishing, by appropriate policy or regulation, fair and equitable guidelines as to what professional activities and functions engaged in by its certified staff, whether teacher or administrator, it will financially support and the extent to which that support will be forthcoming. While we believe a legal basis for the expenditure of school monies for such professional activities has been laid out above, we in no respect conclude that a school board is mandated to approve the incurring of these expenses and costs for reimbursement from school funds. Cf. OAG 80-395, copy attached. We also believe it to be within the legal prerogative of the local board to fairly establish the nature of professional activities for which it will be willing to incur expenses. For example, a local board of education may desire to approve of only the expenses reasonably associated with teachers or administrators attending training and professional improvement meetings conducted by professional organizations. We are not suggesting in the least that other professional activities, including those involving lobbying, are undeserving of support. To the contrary, we concluded in OAG 74-212, copy attached, that the expenditure of school money to support lobbying activities was proper. We simply wish it to be understood that it is for each board of education to equitably determine the professional activities of its teachers and administrators it will financially support and that each possible expenditure must be applied against the constitutional educational purpose test.
We trust the above will be of assistance to you and to your school board client.