Request By:
The Honorable N. Clayton Little
House of Representatives
H.C. 83 Box 385
Virgie, Kentucky 41572
Opinion
Opinion By: Frederic J. Cowan, Attorney General; Anne E. Keating, Assistant Attorney General
In your recent letter you requested an opinion from this office interpreting House Bill 940, the Education Reform Act, with regard to the hiring of a spouse of a superintendent of schools. In your letter you presented the situation of a superintendent of schools who received his contract from the local board of education in July, 1989. The superintendent's spouse is a classified employee who has worked in the central office of the county board of education for five years. The spouse does not supervise any employees. Your question is what effect House Bill 940 will have on the spouse's position. Section 78 of House Bill 940, amending KRS 160.380 on the hiring of school employees, was subsequently amended by House Bill 529, and KRS 160.380(2)(e) now reads:
Effective July 1, 1991, no relative of a superintendent of schools shall be an employee of the school district. However, this shall not apply to a relative who is an employee of the school district prior to the effective date of this Act and who is certified for the position he holds, as long as the superintendent is holding office on July 1, 1991, and it shall not apply to a superintendent's spouse who has at least twenty (20) years of service in school systems. A superintendent's spouse who is employed under this provision shall not hold a position in which the spouse supervises certified or classified employees. A superintendent's spouse may supervise teacher aides and student teachers. However, the superintendent shall not promote his relative who continues employment under an exception of this subsection.
Section 78(2)(e) of Act of April 11, 1990, Chapter 476, 1990 Advance Legislative Service 1600 at 1601, amending KRS 160.380. Section 7(2)(e) of Act of April 23, 1990, Chapter 518, 1990 Advance Legislative Service 2284 at 2294, amending KRS 160.380.
Subsection 78(1)(a) defines "relative" as including "father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, aunt, uncle, son-in-law and daughter-in-law." Section 78(2)(e) of Act of April 11, 1990, Chapter 476, 1990 Advance Legislative Service 1600 at 1600, amending KRS 160.380.
When dealing with issues of statutory construction, KRS 446.080(1) states:
All statutes of this state shall be liberally construed with a view to promote their objects and carry out the intent of the legislature . . . .
In this state the courts have held:
In construing a statute, the primary rule is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the legislature . . . and such intention must primarily be determined from the language of the statute itself . . . .
City of Vanceburg v. Plumber, 275 Ky. 713, 122 S.W.2d 772 (1938).
In this case the language of the statute appears susceptible only to one interpretation as the language is clear. Section 78(2)(e) of House Bill 940 essentially contains two exceptions to the requirement that, as of July 1, 1991, no relative of a superintendent shall be an employee of the school district:
1. The first exception applies to relatives who are employees of the superintendent's school district prior to July 13, 1990, and who are certified for the positions they hold, so long as the superintendent is holding office on July 1, 1991.
2. The second exception applies to spouses who have twenty or more years of service in school systems.
Note that Section 78(1)(a) defines relative as including spouses. Therefore, spouses are eligible for the first exception set forth pertaining to relatives in Subsection (2)(e); that is, spouses, along with other qualified relatives who are employees of the district prior to July 13, 1990 and who are certified employees, may retain their positions so long as their spouse, the superintendent, holds office on July 1, 1991. Any spouse of a superintendent who is unable to retain employment under the exception pertaining, generally, to relatives, may be eligible to retain employment under the second exception by having twenty or more years of service in school systems. The second exception pertains to both certified and classified employees.
Therefore, in the situation presented, if the superintendent in question were to remain superintendent on July 1, 1991, the spouse who has been a classified employee for five years will not be eligible to retain employment under the exception pertaining, generally, to relatives. However, if the spouse has twenty or more years of service in school systems, then that spouse would be eligible to retain employment so long as she would not be supervising other classified employees.