Request By:
Mr. David H. Bland
Executive Director
Kentucky Jailers Association
Route #2, McCowans Ferry Pike
Versailles, Kentucky 40383
Opinion
Opinion By: David L. Armstrong, Attorney General; By: Charles W. Runyan, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
KRS 441.225, as enacted by the 1984 Session of the General Assembly, reads:
"(1) Except for capital improvements, maintenance, utilities and insurance and except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, the jailer shall have authority to authorize expenditures from the jail budget. Such expenditures shall only be made in accordance with the line item jail budget duly adopted or amended by the fiscal court and the established county procurement code or purchase order procedure of the county. Payment for purchases for the jail shall be subject to fiscal court approval prior to payment. The fiscal court shall not withhold approval of payment for jail expenditures which are within the jail budget and not unlawful.
"(2) The jailer shall submit, in accordance with county payroll procedures, time reports for all full-time and part-time jail personnel and employes to the county treasurer or other designated payroll official. The county treasurer shall review and pay such claims in accordance with policies and procedures for the payment of other county employes."
Question No. 1:
"Doesn't this language make the fiscal court the employer of jail employees for purposes of remuneration and fringe benefits? "
In a narrow sense, since the jailer's office is no longer funded to any degree with jailer fees, and since the jail operation is to be funded out of the "jail budget" of the county budget, KRS 441.225(2) refers narrowly to the fact that jail personnel and employees are considered county employees for purposes of their receiving their compensation out of the county treasury (jail budget) .
However, we believe that the phrase "other county employees" , appearing in KRS 441.225(2), goes beyond the narrow function of relating to the jail personnel compensation. It is our opinion that it buttresses the concept that for general purposes of various fringe benefits, the jail employees are indeed county employees. The plain meaning of the statute (subsection (2)) is that jail employees are to be considered generally as county employees for general legal purposes. Bailey v. Reeves, Ky., 622 S.W.2d 832 (1984) 834.
We pointed out in OAG 84-203, copy enclosed, that the term "county employees" includes the deputies, assistants and various statutory support personnel of local or county constitutional officers. Shipp v. Rodes, 196 Ky. 523, 245 S.W. 157 (1922). See the opinion for a brief history of deputies of constitutional officers as county employees and the implications concerning fringe benefits.
Question No. 2:
"By virtue of being county employees, are not the jail employees entitled to the same benefits and conditions of employment as are enjoyed by other county employees? "
We have answered that generally, above. Jail employees are generally entitled to fringe benefits afforded other county employees. However, for specifics in the proper implementation of the fringe benefit concept for such jail employees, see OAG 84-203, copy enclosed, which deals at some length with that problem.
While uniformity is the basic goal in applying the statutory law pertaining to fringe benefits, the fact that the constitutional officers have a basic functional control and direction over their employees results in some variation in applying a fringe benefit program. Again we refer you to OAG 84-203 for details.