Request By:
Mr. Alan J. George
Assistant County Attorney
110 North Court Street
Versailles, Kentucky 40383
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
Your letter raises questions about the formulation of rules governing the operation of county jails.
KRS 441.011(1) requires the Corrections Cabinet, by January 1, 1983, to adopt the recommendations of the jail standards commission and promulgate regulations, under KRS Chapter 13, establishing minimum standards for jails. The standards must include, but not be limited to, rules governing health and safety conditions, fire safety, "jail operations, recordkeeping and administration," curriculum of basic and continuing annual training for jailers and jail personnel, custody, and care and treatment of prisoners, medical care, and jail equipment, renovation and construction. (Emphasis added).
Section 1 of 501 KAR 3:020, implementing KRS 441.011, reads:
Section 1. Policy and Procedure - Organization
(1) The jailer shall develop and maintain an organizational chart and an operations manual of policy and procedure which has been adopted by the fiscal court and filed with the Corrections Cabinet.
(2) The written policy and procedures manual shall be made available to employees.
(3) The operations manual shall include but not be limited to the following aspects of the jail's operation:
(a) Administration
(b) Fiscal management
(c) Personnel
(d) Security and Control
(e) Sanitation and management
(f) Medical services
(g) Food services
(h) Emergency and safety procedures
(i) Classification
(j) Inmate programs
(k) Inmate services
(l) Admission and release
(4) The operations manual shall be reviewed and updated at least annually.
The provisions of this section shall be effective as of July 1, 1983.
Question No. 1:
"Am I correct in concluding that KRS 441.010 is controlling and that this standard would apply only in the event that a fiscal court has chosen to establish guidelines for the operation of its county jail?
KRS 441.010(1) and (2) reads:
(1) The county governing body may prescribe rules for the government and cleanliness of the county jail and the comfort and treatment of prisoners, provided such rules are consistent with state law. The county judge/executive may inspect the jail at any reasonable time.
(2) Wilful violation of the rules promulgated pursuant to subsection (1) of this section shall be deemed a violation.
KRS 441.011(1)(a)3. provides that the Corrections Cabinet must promulgate regulations concerning, inter alia, "jail operations, recordkeeping and administration." (Emphasis added). We believe that the above statute, when considered together with the totality of the jailer's responsibilities in the operation of the jail (see KRS 71.020, 71.030, 71.040, 441.008(1), 441.010(1), 441.012(4), 441.013(3), 441.014(2), and 441.016(1)), authorizes the Corrections Cabinet to require, as it did in 501 KAR 3:020, that county jailers maintain an operations manual covering jail operations and administration. This statutory authority and construction logically and reasonably emerges from the fourcorners of the 1982 jail legislation. If the jailers are to reasonably conform to the operational responsibilities placed upon the jailers in this legislation, the operations manual will represent an organizational and detailed tool to accomplish the legislative purpose of providing an orderly and effective jail system in Kentucky. An operations manual clearly comes within the literalism of "jail operations, recordkeeping and administration." The courts have declared they are bound by the plain meaning of language in a statute. H.O. Hurley Co. v. Martin, 267 Ky. 182, 101 S.W.2d 657 (1937).
It is true that KRS 441.010(1), when viewed in isolation, is permissive as relates to the fiscal court's prescribing rules pertaining to the internal management of the county jail. The term "may" is used. However, 501 KAR 3:020, Section 1 requires the jailer to develop and maintain an operations manual of policy and procedure which has been adopted by the fiscal court and filed with the Corrections Cabinet. We think this is authorized when various statutory sections Of KRS Chapter 441 are read together. Literal language contained in some parts of a statute in apparent conflict with the general scheme should surrender to the general purpose and intent of the legislature as gathered from all parts of the legislation. Department of Revenue v. Miller, 303 Ky. 822, 199 S.W.2d 622 (1947).
In considering the fiscal court's joint responsibility with the jailer for the operation of the jail (which joint responsibility will be detailed hereinafter), it is our opinion that the Cabinet's regulation requiring the fiscal court to adopt a manual of policy and administration, is reasonably consistent with KRS Chapter 441. Of course such a manual must be consistent with state statutes relating to jail operations or operational standards. They must also be consistent with the jail regulations promulgated by the Corrections Cabinet, now found in 501 KAR 3:020. See KRS 13.082, and Ruby Const. Co. v. Dept. of Rev., Com. Ex Rel. Carpenter, Ky.App., 578 S.W.2d 248 (1979), holding that administrative regulations must be consistent with statutory law. Where administrative regulations have been adopted and filed, they have the same effect as statutes or ordinances enacted directly by the legislative body from which the administrative agency derives its authority, provided the regulation is in conformity with the statutes or ordinance, as the case may be. Rietze v. Williams, Ky.App., 458 S.W.2d 613 (1970).
Thus there is ample statutory direction in KRS Chapter 441 authorizing the Corrections Cabinet to require jailers and fiscal courts to promulgate or establish an organizational chart and operations manual of policy and procedure.
Question No. 2:
"Also, then, in light of the permissive wording of KRS 441.010, is it true that, as concerns county jail operations, the fiscal court is now required only to fund the jail and to maintain the physical jail structure?"
We are of the opinion that the fiscal court has a joint responsibility with the jailer in the operation of the county jail.
The fiscal court's responsibilities in the operation of the county jail go beyond the mere capital outlay funding of the jail as a county building. The jail is an institution for which the fiscal court has a joint responsibility with the jailer in the proper operation of the jail under jail statutes and regulations.
KRS 441.006(1) mandates that the fiscal court in each county provide for the incarceration of prisoners, etc., by providing and maintaining a jail in the county. KRS 441.008 requires the fiscal court to adopt a jail budget as a part of the county budget. The jailer is salaried out of the jail budget, and other jail expenses are so funded. KRS 441.009. KRS 441.012(4) requires the Corrections Cabinet to submit an annual written report of the findings of its inspections and the condition of the jail to the jailer and fiscal court. The Corrections Cabinet is required to deliver its orders, relating to jail law violations, to both the jailer and county judge executive. KRS 441.013(3). The Cabinet has been given authority to enforce its orders against both the jailer and/or fiscal court. KRS 441.014(2). The jailer is required to submit a quarterly report to the fiscal court concerning physical conditions, the number of jail personnel, and personnel needs and other matters requested by fiscal court. KRS 441.016(1).
All of the above statutory sections are interrelated and were enacted as parts of a single piece of jail legislation, and must be read together and harmonized in order to be consistent with the general purpose of the legislation. Daviess County v. Snyder, Ky., 556 S.W.2d 688 (1977).
The answer to question no. 2 is that the fiscal court has a joint responsibility with the jailer in the operation of the county jail.