Request By:
Mrs. Kay McClure
626 Shawnee Road
Danville, Kentucky 40422
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; Walter C. Herdman, Asst. Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of February 22 in which you relate that your husband is a city fireman and that you own a small printing shop, and have been doing printing business for the city for about eight years. Your husband assists you with the presses and delivery of printed material. With respect to the above, you raise the following question:
"Is there a law that says a city (City of Danville) cannot do business with a city employee?"
Our response to your question would be in the negative. Your letter, however, fails to indicate whether the city is operating under the state Model Procurement Code or is simply governed by the terms of KRS 61.260 relating to possible conflicts of interest involving officers of cities of the third class to which Danville belongs.
Prior to an amendment to KRS 45A.455 that became effective April 9, 1980, no contract could involve a city and an employee of the city or a member of his immediate family having a financial interest in a contract. See OAG 80-133. However, the amendment referred to, which became effective subsequent to the opinion, inserted a phrase in KRS 45A.455 that restricted the application of the statute to any employee having procurement authority by virtue of his employment. We must assume by reason of the position that your husband holds with the city, that of fireman, he has no procurement authority as defined in KRS 45A.030 which involves the authority of purchasing, buying, leasing or otherwise obtaining supplies, services, etc. for the city. Thus his lack of procurement authority would allow him or a member of his immediate family to contract with the city without violating KRS 45A.455.
We next refer to KRS 61.260 which prohibits, as previously mentioned, any officer of a city of a third class from having any direct or indirect interest in a contract with the city. This statute would not apply to employees of the city, in this case a fireman who is not an officer thereof, as held in OAG 75-415, copy attached.
Also from the related facts, you are apparently the sole owner of the printing shop in which case there would likewise be no conflict of interest under the provisions of KRS 61.260 and we have so held in a number of opinions, among them OAG 80-427, copy attached.
Under the circumstances, we know of no legal objection to your continuing to contract with the city for printing services.