Request By:
Hon. Robert L. Chenoweth
121 Bridge Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
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 on behalf of Superintendent James H. Hampton, of Knox County Schools, concerning the continued employment of his wife after June 30, 1991. You explained that Mrs. Joan Hampton was appointed to the position of Food Service Director for the Knox County Schools prior to July 13, 1990. Superintendent Hampton also was hired prior to July 13, 1990.
This office examined the eligibility of a superintendent's wife to remain employed after June 30, 1991, in OAG 90-130. The standard defining eligibility for continued employment is set forth in KRS 160.380(1)(a) and (2)(e), which state:
As used in this section:
(1)(a) 'Relative' shall mean father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife , son, daughter, aunt, uncle, son-in-law, and daughter-in-law.
(2)(e) Effective July 1, 1991, no relative of the 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 July 13, 1990 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) year's 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.
[Emphasis added]. In summary, we stated in OAG 90-130, p. 2, that:
KRS 160.380(2)(e) creates two exemptions from the prohibition on employing a relative (or in this case spouse) of a district superintendent:
1. The first exemption 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 spouces who have twenty or more years of service in school systems.
Mrs. Joan Hampton, as wife of Superintendent James H. Hampton, is a relative as defined by KRS 160.380(1), and, based on the facts provided, was an employee of the school district prior to July 13, 1990. We assume that Superintendent Hampton will be in office on July 1, 1991. While you do not mention whether Mrs. Hampton is certified for the position held or whether Mrs. Hampton has twenty or more years of service in school systems, one of those two conditions must be met in order for Mrs. Hampton to be eligible under KRS 160.380(2)(e). Certification for the position of Food Service Director is currently not required by the Department of Education.
Assuming that Mrs. Hampton has twenty years or more of service in school systems, next we will review the postion within the organizational structure and examine the duties and responsibilities to ascertain whether or not the position is supervisory. Both the Knox County School organizational chart and the Knox County School food service organizational chart show the position for Director of Food Service, also called Director of School Lunch Program, as being in line of authority with the office of superintendent, and (on one chart) under the office of assistant superintendent, as indicated by unbroken lines between the positioons. According to the legend in the lower right hand corner of each chart, an unbroken line indicates line authority while a dotted line indicates an advisory relationship. The position is connected by dotted lines with the offices of principal, managers and head cooks, cooks, custodians, and lunchroom clerks, indicating advisory relationships, only.
A review of the duties for Food Service Director shows that the Food Service Director is in charge of the school food service program which is to be carried out in conformity with federal and state laws and school district policies. The duties entail development of standards for the administration of the program, such as development of policies and procedures to be recommended to administrators; development and implementation of standards for an efficient high quality program; preparing specifications and bid conditions; applying for food available through the United States Department of Agriculture and aranging for distibution and transfer; applying for federal subsides and distributing federal and state funds to various schools; coordinating an audit of food service accounts; checking the preparation and serving of menus at schools; reviewing requests for purchase or replacement of equipment; standardizing prices; coordinating meetings with school food service employees; and serving as a liaison between education and food service staffs in establishing nutrition programs. Based on the information provded, there does not appear to be a supervisory role, but rather a liaison role. As stated in OAG 90-130, "We interpret 'liaison' as referring to communications among these groups, which would not be a supervisory role, rather than to directing these groups on how to interact with each other which would be a supervisory role." OAG 90-130, p. 3. We also stated, "the training of classified employees and certified employees to the extent of directing their activities as part of their employment would, in our opinion, violate the prohibition upon a superintendent's spouse from supervising such employees since a trainer is normally required to submit an evaluation of the trainee's performance, which would be a supervisory role." OAG 90-130, p. 3.
Therefore, in our opinion, assuming Mrs. Hampton's employment qualifies under one of the two statutory exemptions previously described, and assuming that our interpretation of the job description for "Food Service Director" is correct, the Knox County School Board would be able to continue to employ Mrs. Hampton as Food Service Director after July 1, 1991, without violating KRS 160.380(2)(e). If the facts of Mrs. Hampton's employment are contrary to either of these assumptions, then the continued employment of Mrs. Hampton after July 1, 1991, could violate KRS 160.380(2)(e).