Request By:
Dr. Robert Boggs, Superintendent
Grayson County School District
Post Office Box 4009
Leitchfield, Kentucky 42754
Opinion
Opinion By: Frederic J. Cowan, Attorney General; Anne E. Keating, Assistant Attorney General
In your recent letter, you requested an interpretation of the Kentucky Education Reform Act with regard to nepotism. In particular, you ask:
If an interim superintendent's spouse is employed in the same school district and does not have twenty years accumulated in school districts, is the spouse required to resign?
This Office recently received a similar inquiry prior to the appointment of an acting superintendent. In the situation presented, the superintendent of the school district had resigned. Until a new superintendent could be appointed pursuant to KRS 160.352, the school district planned to appoint an individual to carry out the duties and responsibilities of the superintendent's office. That individual would not be considered for permanent appointment. He had two relatives in the school system who met the definition of "relative" as set forth in KRS 160.380.
When asked whether the individual might serve in the capacity of "Acting Superintendent, " this Office concluded:
[D]uring a reasonable period of time, not to exceed 6 months, required for the board of education to appoint a permanent superintendent of schools, the individual who is appointed to serve as "Acting Superintendent" may do so without violating the provisions of KRS 160.380. . . .
The language of KRS 160.380 pertains to the permanent incumb [e]nt of the Office of Superintendent, not to the temporary incumb [e]nt who carries out the duties necessary to maintain effective management of the district until a new superintendent may be appointed.
In reaching this determination, the Office relied on OAG 91-13 which concluded that an assistant principal and his spouse might work in the same school without violating KRS 160.380(2) (g):
In the same manner, had the legislature wished to include spouses of assistant principals the legislature would have done so. It is a primary rule of statutory construction that the expression of one thing implies the exclusion of the other.
Smith v. Welding, Ky.,. 303 S.W.2d 322 (1957). Accordingly, it is the opinion of this office that employment of a spouse of an assistant principal is not prohibited employment of a relative under KRS 160.380(2) (g).
Therefore, in our letter of September 23, 1991, this Office interpreted KRS 160.380(2) (e) as not referring to the temporary assignment of acting superintendent so long as the assignment exists only for the brief period necessary to appoint a permanent superintendent, not to exceed 6 months.
In the situation that you present where an interim superintendent's spouse does not have 20 years service in school districts, it is the Opinion of this Office that the spouse is not required to resign, so long as the interim superintendent is not a candidate for permanent appointment, and serves only for the brief period necessary to appoint a permanent superintendent, not to exceed 6 months.