Did Kentucky's 1994 city and county ethics-code law cover special districts?
Apply this to your situation
This page answers the general question as of 1994. Ask about yours and see what current Kentucky law means for your facts, with citations you can check.
Plain-English summary
Kentucky's Attorney General said the 1994 local ethics-code law did not require special districts to follow codes adopted by cities or counties. KRS 65.003 named city and county elected officials, appointed officials, and employees. The AG said its text did not include officials or employees of separate special districts, even when county or urban-county officials appointed their directors.
The opinion also said cities and counties had no authority under that law to extend their codes to special districts. A special district could choose to adopt relevant parts of a city or county code or write its own.
Currency note
This opinion was issued in 1994. 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
Special district directors and employees
The AG treated special districts as separate from city and county government for this statute. He compared KRS 65.003's repeated references to cities and counties with other statutes that used “local government” more broadly or expressly defined special districts. On that reading, appointment by a county did not place a special district's people within the county's ethics code.
Cities and counties
The AG said local governments were neither compelled nor authorized by KRS 65.003 to extend their codes to separate districts. He noted that a district could cross city or county boundaries, which would make application of different local codes confusing. The opinion did not bar a district from choosing its own code.
Common questions
Did a county-appointed district director have to follow the county ethics code under this law?
The AG said no. Appointment by county officials did not make the director a county official for KRS 65.003.
Could a city or county impose its code on a special district?
The AG said he found no authority for that under the 1994 law.
Could a special district adopt an ethics code voluntarily?
Yes. The opinion said a district could use relevant parts of a city or county code or draft its own.
Background and statutory framework
The requester asked about districts whose directors were appointed by county or urban-county officials. The AG read KRS 65.003's listed officials and employees as limited to city and county government. He pointed to KRS 65.005's separate definition of special districts and KRS 65.200's broader use of “local government” to support that distinction.
Citations and references
- KRS 65.003
- KRS 65.005
- KRS 65.200
Source
Original opinion text
OAG 94-71
December 9, 1994
Subject: Whether local ethics codes apply to special districts
Written by: Ross T. Carter
Requested by: Valarie Honeycutt
Syllabus: City and county ethics codes do not apply to special districts
Statutes construed: KRS 65.003
Opinion of the Attorney General
The following question has been presented:
Does the local ethics law, KRS 65.003, apply to special districts whose directors are appointed by county or urban-county officials?
It is the opinion of the Attorney General that KRS 65.003 does not subject special districts to local ethics codes.
Subsection 1 of KRS 65.003 states:
No later than January 1, 1995, the governing body of each city and county, including urban-counties and charter counties, shall adopt, by ordinance, a code of ethics which shall apply to all elected officials of the city or county, and to appointed officials and employees of the city or county government as specified in the code of ethics. The elected officials of a city or county to which a code of ethics shall apply include the mayor, county judge/executive, members of the governing body, county clerk, county attorney, sheriff, jailer, coroner, surveyor, and constable but do not include members of any school board.
By its plain terms, the statute applies to three groups:
-
Elected officials of the city or county;
-
Appointed officials of the city or county; and
-
Employees of the city or county.
The statute makes no reference to officials or employees of governmental units other than cities or counties. The preamble to the legislative act (Acts 1994 c. 16) refers to the legislation as "An Act relating to the establishment of codes of ethics in cities and counties." The words city and county are paired twenty times in KRS 65.003; there is no reference to any other political subdivision other than a direction to "all state agencies" to suspend delivery of services and payment to cities or counties that do not comply with the statute.
The distinction between county or city government and the general category of special districts has been amply recognized by the legislature. For example, KRS 65.005 derfines special district to include "all political subdivisions of the state except a city, a county, or a school district." While the subject of KRS 65.005 is entirely different from the subject of KRS 65.003, it does illustrate that special districts are not considered a subset of city or county government. Conversely, KRS 65.200 illustrates that the legislature uses the term "local government" to refer inclusively to cities, counties, and special districts. The term "local government" is not used in KRS 65.003.
Therefore we conclude that KRS 65.003 does not compel the inclusion of special districts in local codes of ethics.
While no city or county is compelled to extend its ethics code to special districts, some may wish to. We find no authority to do so. As a general rule, cities and counties have no jurisdiction to govern the administration of special districts. Furthermore, the boundaries of special districts are not necessarily coextensive with the boundaries any city or county. A special district could lie in two counties, or in two cities, or partly within a city. If the various cities and counties within a special district enact inconsistent codes of ethics and then attempt to apply those codes to employees of the special district, hopeless confusion would result.
This opinion does not preclude special districts from adopting their own codes of ethics. A special district could adopt relevant portions of a city or county code of ethics or draft a code of its own.
Chris Gorman
Attorney General
Ross T. Carter
Assistant Attorney General
What does Kentucky law say today, for your facts?
This opinion is from 1994. Ezel checks the current Kentucky statutes and case law, applies them to your situation, and cites what it relies on.
Opens in Ezel Pro.
- Checks the law as it stands today, not only this page
- Cites every source it relies on, so you can verify it
- Chat, drafting and research in one workspace