Did a Kentucky city or county ethics code have to cover every appointed official and employee?

Plain-English summary

In 1995, Kentucky's Attorney General concluded that KRS 65.003 did not require a city or county ethics code to impose standards of conduct on every appointed official and employee. The statute expressly required coverage of all elected officials. For appointees and employees, several provisions used the words "as specified" in the local code, leaving the code to identify who else was covered.

One paragraph referred more broadly to standards for elected and appointed officials and employees. The AG read that paragraph with the statute's more specific coverage language rather than as a command to include every person in all three groups.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1995. 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

Cities and counties writing ethics codes

The AG treated the word "all" before elected officials as deliberate. A local code had to cover every elected city or county official. The opinion did not read KRS 65.003 as making the same demand for every appointee or employee; their coverage depended on the code's terms.

Appointed officials and employees

The opinion did not exclude this group from ethics codes. It said appointed officials and employees were covered as the local government specified. That reading reconciled the statute's repeated specific coverage language with a more general sentence about standards of conduct.

Common questions

Did the 1995 Kentucky ethics statute require a city code to cover every appointed employee?

No. The AG said the statute required standards for appointed officials and employees only to the extent the local code specified them.

Could a local ethics code leave out elected officials?

No. The AG contrasted appointees and employees with elected officials, all of whom KRS 65.003 required the code to cover.

Why did one paragraph mention appointed officials and employees without a qualifier?

The AG found that sentence more general than three provisions saying appointed officials and employees were covered "as specified." It read the provisions together and gave effect to the more specific language.

Background and statutory framework

KRS 65.003 required local governments to adopt ethics codes. The question was how many people those codes had to cover. The AG compared subsection (1), subsection (2), and paragraph 3(b), all of which distinguished all elected officials from specified appointees and employees, with the broader wording of paragraph 3(a). Its answer concerned the statute as it stood in 1995.

Citations and references

• KRS 65.003: local ethics code requirement and the distinction between elected and specified appointed officials and employees.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG95-016.htm

Original opinion text

OAG 95-16

April 10, 1995

Subject: Local Government Code of Ethics

Written by: Ross T. Carter

Requested by: Bruce Ferguson, Commissioner, Department of Local Government

Syllabus: KRS 65.003 does not require local governments to adopt a code of ethics containing standards of conduct for every appointed official and employee.

Statutes construed: KRS 65.003

Opinion of the Attorney General

The issue is whether KRS 65.003, which requires local governments to adopt a code of ethics, obligates local governments to extend the code of ethics to appointed officials and employees, or whether it is permissible to apply the code only to elected officials.

KRS 65.003(1) states that a code of ethics “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.” Subsection 2 refers to “all elected officials of the cities or counties, and to appointed officials and employees as specified by each of the cities or counties.” Paragraph 3(b) refers to “all elected officials of each city and county government, and other officials or employees of the city or county government, as specified in the code of ethics.” In each of these provisions, the legislature has clearly delineated between elected officials, whom the code must cover, and appointees and employees, who are covered only to the extent specified in the code. In every instance, the term elected officials is preceded by the modifier all,and the term appointed officials and employees is followed by the qualifier as specified in the code of ethics.

In contrast to provisions quoted above, paragraph 3(a) says that a code of ethics must contain “standards of conduct for elected and appointed officials and employees” without the qualifying language all or as specified in the code of ethics. It is suggested that this paragraph indicates a legislative intent that all officials and employees be covered by standards of conduct set out in the code of ethics.

We do not agree. Plainly, it is impossible to give literal effect to every paragraph in this statute. One cannot say on one hand that the code applies to all officials and employees and on the other hand say that it applies only to the appointed officials and employees who are specified in the code. We are persuaded that the statute must be construed to allow the more specific provisions to prevail; that is, because the legislature stated three times that the code applies to all elected officials and to other employees as specified, those provisions supply the more carefully expressed legislative intent. The brief reference in paragraph 3(a) to “elected and appointed officials and employees” does not necessarily denote all elected and appointed officials and employees. Rather, it denotes those officials that other provisions of the statute make subject to the code.

We conclude therefore that KRS 65.003 does not require local governments to adopt a code of ethics containing standards of conduct for every appointed official and employee.

Chris Gorman

Attorney General

Ross T. Carter

Director

Division of Civil and Environmental Law