Could a Kentucky superintendent’s spouse remain an assistant principal if she sometimes filled in for the principal?

Plain-English summary

Trigg County asked whether the wife of an assistant superintendent could stay employed as an assistant elementary principal if her husband became superintendent. She had more than twenty years of school service, qualifying for the spouse exception to the employment restriction the Attorney General read in 1992. The remaining issue was supervision: the statute barred a superintendent’s spouse from supervising certified or classified employees, except teacher aides and student teachers. The AG said her occasional, brief service in the principal’s absence did not amount to the regular, permanent supervisory responsibility the statute prohibited. The conclusion depended on her actual duties and the organizational chart, and the board could remove the fill-in duty to eliminate the question.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1992. Subsequent statutory amendments, court decisions, or later AG opinions may have changed the analysis. Treat this page as historical context, not current legal advice. Verify current law before relying on any specific rule, deadline, or remedy mentioned here.

Historical summary

School boards evaluating a superintendent’s spouse

The AG said the spouse met the then-current twenty-year service exception. It looked beyond the assistant principal’s written performance duties to the organizational chart, which showed authority over staff when she filled in for the principal. The reported fill-in time was about four or five days out of ninety; the AG treated such short, infrequent episodes differently from permanent supervision.

Assistant principals serving in a principal’s absence

The opinion read KRS 160.380(2)(e) to bar regular and permanent supervisory responsibility over certified or classified employees. Temporary, occasional work on behalf of an absent principal did not make the spouse ineligible on these facts. The AG noted that eliminating that substitute role from her duties would resolve the potential supervision question.

Common questions

Did the spouse’s long school service by itself settle whether she could stay employed?

No. It satisfied the spouse exception, but the AG still examined whether her assistant principal duties involved prohibited supervision.

Did covering for the principal for a few days bar continued employment?

The AG said no on the reported facts. It distinguished short, infrequent fill-in periods from regular, permanent supervisory responsibility.

Did the written job description control the answer alone?

No. The AG considered both assigned duties and the organizational chart, which showed what authority the assistant principal had while acting for the principal.

Background and statutory framework

The opinion applied KRS 160.380(2)(e), which then restricted a superintendent’s relatives from district employment while excepting a spouse with sufficient service. The same provision limited the spouse’s supervision of employees. The AG interpreted the supervisory limit in light of the actual assistant-principal role and the brief periods of substitute service described in the request.

Citations and references

• KRS 160.380(2)(e): spouse service exception and supervision restriction construed by the AG.

Source

• Landing page: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/uncategorized/IO_4d1ca35c-5211-42c0-8598-685db00dd541/
• Original PDF: https://kdla.access.preservica.com/download/file/IO_4d1ca35c-5211-42c0-8598-685db00dd541

Original opinion text

OAG 92-45
March 23, 1992

Hon. C. A. Woodall, III
Post Office Box 186
Cadiz, Kentucky 42211-0186
Dear Mr. Woodall:
In your recent letter, on behalf of the Trigg County Board of Education, you have asked for an opinion of the Attorney General interpreting KRS 160.380(2)(e) as it applies to the following fact situation. Effective January 1, 1991, the Trigg County Board of Education had a vacancy for the position of superintendent. The current assistant superintendent is interested in applying for the position, however, his wife, who is an employee with over 20 years of experience in the system, is currently employed as an assistant elementary principal. If the assistant superintendent were to be appointed to the position of superintendent, you ask whether the spouse might continue to remain employed with the school district as an assistant principal. Under KRS 160.380(2)(e), as of July 1, 1991, a superintendent has been prohibited from employing a relative in the school district. The prohibition does not apply to a superintendent’s spouse who has 20 years of service in school systems so long as the superintendent’s spouse does not supervise anyone other than teacher aides and student teachers. In the situation that you present, the superintendent’s spouse has the requisite number of years of experience in school systems. Therefore, the answer to your question depends on the duties actually assigned to the assistant principal as well as on the duties that accompany the placement of the position in the organizational structure. As you point out, the board policy which sets forth performance responsibilities does not include supervisory responsibility over certified or classified employees. Nevertheless, the organizational

Hon. C.A. Woodall, III
Page Two
OAG 92-45
chart indicates that the assistant principal does supervise classified and certified staff when serving in the absence of, and on behalf of, the principal. Since September, 1991, the assistant principal has served in the absence of the principal approximately 4-5 days out of 90 days. It is not possible to anticipate how many days an assistant principal might have to serve on behalf of a principal. So long as the number and duration of times remains small and infrequent, it is the opinion of this office that the assistant principal may not be said to have supervisory responsibility over certified and classified employees in violation of KRS 160.380(2)(e). We interpret KRS 160.380(2)(e) to prohibit supervisory responsibility that is regular and permanent, and not to encompass the occasional episodes that may occur when one acts, temporarily, in the place of the principal. Therefore, given the above facts, job description, and organizational chart, it is the opinion of this office that, so long as the assistant principal merely serves, occasionally, on behalf of the principal in that individual’s absence, the assistant principal would not be prohibited from continued employment with the school district should the spouse become superintendent. Nevertheless, the board could solve any potential question by eliminating from the assistant principal’s duties the responsibility of serving on behalf of the principal in that individual’s absence. Sincerely, CHRIS GORMAN ATTORNEY GENERAL

Anne E. Keating
Assistant Attorney General