Could a Kentucky superintendent's relative keep a classified school job under the 36-month employment exception?

Plain-English summary

In 1997, Kentucky's Attorney General interpreted a school employment restriction involving relatives of superintendents. The Kentucky School Boards Association asked whether a relative who had worked in the district for at least 36 months before the superintendent took office could keep a classified job under an exception for an employee “certified for the position he holds.” The AG concluded that the exception covered certified employees only. Prior service alone did not make a classified employee eligible.

The opinion distinguished employees whose positions required a certificate from classified employees, whose positions did not. It relied on that distinction in the statute's text. For a classified relative relying on the 36-month exception, the opinion concluded that the relative would have to resign before the superintendent assumed office, or the superintendent could not take office.

Currency note

This opinion was issued in 1997. 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 and superintendents

The 1996 amendment to KRS 160.380(2)(e) generally barred a superintendent's relative from district employment, while providing a prior-employment exception tied to certification for the position. The AG read both requirements together: at least 36 months of district employment before the superintendent took office and certification for the job held. The quoted statute also contained a separate provision for a superintendent's spouse with 20 years of school-system service; the opinion's question and analysis focused on the 36-month exception.

Relatives employed by a school district

The AG said a classified employee could not qualify for the 36-month exception because a classified position did not require certification. The conclusion stated that a classified relative who lacked an applicable exception would have to leave the position before the superintendent took office, or the superintendent could not assume office.

Common questions

Did 36 months of district service let a classified relative keep the job?

No. The AG held that the exception required both prior district service and certification for the position held.

What did “certified for the position” mean in this opinion?

It referred to positions for which Kentucky law required a certificate of legal qualifications. The AG contrasted those positions with classified jobs, which did not require certification.

Did the opinion decide every exception for a superintendent's spouse?

No. The statutory passage quoted in the opinion included a separate 20-year service provision for a spouse, but the request asked whether the 36-month, certified-position exception extended to classified employees.

Background and statutory framework

The Kentucky School Boards Association sought an interpretation of Senate Bill 395, which amended KRS 160.380(2)(e). The AG compared the phrase “certified for the position” with the definition of a classified employee in KRS 161.011 and the certificate requirement in KRS 161.020(1). It also noted that the same provision separately referred to “certified or classified employees,” showing the legislature used the terms distinctly.

Citations and references

• KRS 160.380(2)(e): restriction and exceptions for employment of a superintendent's relatives.
• KRS 161.011: definition of a classified employee.
• KRS 161.020(1): certificate requirement for listed school positions.
• Lynch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 902 S.W.2d 813, 814 (1995): ordinary meaning of statutory terms.

Source

• Landing page: https://www.ag.ky.gov/Resources/Opinions/Opinions/OAG97-006.htm

Original opinion text

OAG 97-6

February 25, 1997

Subject: The employment of relatives of a superintendent of schools

Written by: Diane Schuler Fleming

Requested by: David L. Keller, Executive Director of the Kentucky School Boards Association

Syllabus: Pursuant to the rules of statutory construction, the exemption set forth in KRS 160.380(2)(e) is only available to certified employees in a school district.

Statutes construed: KRS 160.380(2)(e); KRS 161.011; and KRS 161.020(1)

OAG cited: OAG 91-28

Opinion of the Attorney General

The Kentucky School Boards Association has requested that we review Senate Bill 395, which was passed by the 1996 General Assembly. Specifically, we have been asked to determine whether this provision applies only to certified employees who have been employed at least thirty-six months prior to the superintendent assuming office, or whether it includes classified employees as well. Pursuant to the rules of statutory construction, we find that the exemption set forth in KRS 160.380(2)(e) is only available to certified employees in a school district.

Senate Bill 395 amended KRS 160.380(2)(e) to read as follows:

No relative of a 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 for at least thirty-six (36) months prior to the superintendent assuming office and who is certified for the position he holds, and it shall not apply to a superintendent's spouse who has at least twenty (20) years 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.) Our analysis focuses on the phrase “and who is certified for the position he holds.” To determine whether this phrase includes certified employees, classified employees or both, we must ascertain whether they have a common or ordinary meaning. We begin our search with an examination of the statutory definitions.

A “classified employee” is defined by KRS 161.011 as an employee who is not required to have certification for his position, as provided in KRS 161.020. Pursuant to KRS 161.020(1), no person shall be eligible to hold the position of superintendent, principal, teacher, supervisor, director of pupil personnel, or any other position for which a certificate may be issued, unless and until the person obtains a certificate of legal qualifications for such position. These employees are referred to as “certified employees.”

Common usuage of the two terms gives further credence to their distinct meanings. For evidence of this one need look no further than the third sentence of the statute which forbids a superintendent's spouse from supervising “certified or classified employees.” Had the legislature not perceived a distinction between the two types of employees, they could have used the more general term “employee”. Indeed, such terminology is used throughout chapters 160 and 161, indicating the legislature's understanding of the specific meaning of each term.

Now that we have ascertained the meaning of the terms “classified employee” and “certified employee,” we turn to the rules of statutory construction for guidance in interpreting KRS 160.380(2)(e). One of the basic canons of statutory construction is that words employed in a statute are to be given their ordinary meaning. Lynch v. Commonwealth, Ky., 902 S.W.2d 813, 814 (1995). Stated another way, when the language of a statute is plain and unambiguous, it should be given effect as written. Thus, there is no reason to resort to construction or interpretation. See also, Hoy v. Kentucky Industrial Revitalization Authority, Ky., 907 S.W.2d 766, 768 (1995); Terhune v. Commonwealth, Ky.App., 907 S.W.2d 779, 732 (1995); and Griffin v. City of Bowling Green, Ky., 458 S.W.2d 456 (1970).

Applying the rules of statutory construction to the statute in question, we find that the language employed by the General Assembly is clear and unambiguous, and thus should be given effect as written. The statute provides that only those relatives of a superintendent who have been employed for at least 36 months prior to the superintendent assuming office and who are “certified for the position” they hold, have been granted an exemption. Thus we find that only certified employees have been granted an exemption. Accord, OAG 91-28, p. 3 which found that a similar exemption for the spouses of principals, granted in KRS 160.380(2)(g), applied only to certified employees.

In conclusion, no relative of a superintendent may be employed by a school district. An exception to this rule has been made however, for those relatives who are certified employees, and who have been employed by the school district for at least thirty-six months prior to the superintendent assuming office. Relatives of a superintendent who are classified employees are not exempt. Therefore, they must resign their positions prior to the superintendent assuming office, or else the superintendent cannot assume office.

A. B. CHANDLER III

ATTORNEY GENERAL

Diane Schuler Fleming

Assistant Attorney General