Request By:
Hon. Robert Coots
Spencer County Attorney
Courthouse Annex
Main Street
Taylorsville, Kentucky 40071
Opinion
Opinion By: Chris Gorman, Attorney General; Gerard R. Gerhard, Assistant Attorney General, (502) 564-7600
By letter of July 10, 1992, you ask: (1) Does House Bill (HB) 408 (Acts, 1992 Reg. Sess., ch. 89) apply to a county in which the jailer's only duties are as court bailiff and custodian, or must the fiscal court either pay the jailer additional money to act as custodian, or, alternatively, hire a new custodian, and (2) whether the fiscal court can require the jailer, without additional compensation, to transport prisoners.
HB 408 amended KRS 67.130 and KRS 441.510(4) to provide that the fiscal court may no longer require the jailer to act both as bailiff to the circuit and district courts, and as custodian of county buildings and grounds. Under the language of these provisions as amended, if the fiscal court does employ the jailer as superintendent of certain county buildings or properties, he must be compensated separately and additionally for such services, in addition to the regular salary paid the jailer for services as jailer. A copy of HB 408, as set forth in the Acts of the 1992 Regular Session of the General Assembly, is enclosed for your information.
As to the fiscal court forcing the jailer, without additional compensation, to transport prisoners, we believe this cannot be done, if the jailer is expected to continue serving as a bailiff to the circuit and district courts. A determination would also have to be made as to whether both functions could be compatibly performed.
KRS 441.510(3) (a) provides, in substance, that a fiscal court, under a required prisoner transportation plan, may require the jailer to serve as a transportation officer responsible for transporting prisoners as necessary. At the same time, both KRS 71.050 and KRS 441.510(4) provide that, in a county which does not have a jail and the jailer does not transport prisoners , the jailer shall serve as a bailiff to the circuit and district courts.
Implicit in these provisions is that a jailer, in a county which does not have a jail (as in Spencer County), is required to perform either prisoner transportation duties, or bailiff duties, but not both .
We believe that if the fiscal court requires the jailer to serve as a prisoner transportation officer (KRS 441.510(3) (a)), he could only be assigned additional duties as bailiff if, it is first determined that both functions can be compatibly performed (prisoner transportation responsibilities might involve scheduling conflicts with bailiff duties), the jailer agrees to such additional duties, and additional compensation for such duties is provided.