Request By:
John P. Godfrey, Esq.
Assistant General Counsel
Department for Human Resources
209 St. Clair Street
Frankfort, Kentucky 40601
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Thomas R. Emerson, Assistant Attorney General
This is in reply to your letter concerning whether the Legislative Research Commission has the authority to correct an apparent clerical or typographical error in an enrolled bill pursuant to KRS 7.136.
The 1976 Regular Session of the Kentucky General Assembly enacted H.B. 499, "An Act relating to reorganization." The bill, as it appears in the 1976 Acts, Chapter 299, provides in Section 91 as follows: "KRS 152.090, 152.105, 152.190, 152.510 to 152.580, 152.220, 152.670, 152.700 and 174.030 are repealed. " (Emphasis supplied by the undersigned.) As can be clearly seen, 152.105 and 152.190 are separated by a comma rather than by the word "to."
After passing in the House of Representatives, H.B. 499 was amended in the Senate. Prior to the amendment in question, Section 91 of the bill (page 98, line 26) read as follows: "KRS 12.280, 152.090 and 174.030 are repealed. " As evidenced by the Journal of the Senate (1976 Regular Session), March 17, 1976, p. 1400, the bill was amended in part as follows: "Amend printed copy of House Bill 499 . . . and on page 98, line 26, by deleting '12.280,' and by inserting '152.105 to 152.190, KRS 152.510 to 152.580, KRS 152.220, KRS 152.670, KRS 152.700' . . . ." See also the attached copy of the Kentucky General Assembly Amendment Form (Senate), 1976 Regular Session, Amendment of House Bill 499, page 1. Note the use of the word "to" between 152.105 and 152.190. The Journal of the Senate at page 1426 further reflects that H.B. 499 passed as amended on March 17, 1976.
On March 18, 1976, H.B. 499 was received in the House of Representatives. The Journal of the House of Representatives (1976 Regular Session), Vol. II, March 19, 1976, pp. 2171-2172, indicates that the following transpired:
"Representative B. Richardson moved that the House concur in the following Senate Amendment to H.B. 499:
Amend printed copy of H.B. 499 as follows:
Page 98, line 26, by deleting '12.280,' and by inserting '152.105 to 152.190, KRS 152.510 to 152.580, KRS 152.220, KRS 152.670, KRS 152.700' . . . ."
Again, note the use of the word "to" between 152.105 and 152.190. The Journal of the House further indicates, at page 2174, that H.B. 499, as amended, was passed by the House on March 19, 1976.
As previously noted, in spite of the legislative history of H.B. 499, the 1976 Acts (Regular Session), Chapter 299, provides in Section 91 that KRS 152.090, 152.105, 152.190, 152.510 to 152.580, 152.220, 152.670, 152.700 and 174.030 are repealed. Both the Bobbs-Merrill and the Banks-Baldwin editions of the Kentucky Revised Statutes indicate that while KRS 152.105 and 152.190 have been repealed, the statutes between those two provisions still exist.
It seems clear that H.B. 499, as passed by the Senate and the House, provides that KRS 152.105 to 152.190 are repealed rather than just KRS 152.105 and 152.190. A clerical or typographical error has been made.
A question similar to the one you have presented was considered in OAG 77-532, copy enclosed. While recognizing the status attached to a properly attested enrolled bill, that opinion also stated:
"The journals may be resorted to where the legislation is ambiguous or its construction doubtful, in order to ascertain the intention of that body. Certainly this rule is broad enough to encompass the clearing up of mere clerical error.
Fiscal Court of Fayette County v. Nichols, 287 Ky. 478, 153 S.W.2d 986 (1941) 989. As Commissioner Stanley wrote in
Fidelity Columbia Trust Co. v. Meek, 294 Ky. 122, 171 S.W.2d 41 (1943), 'The intent of the lawmakers is the soul of the statute and the search for this intent we have held to be the guiding star of the court.' (Emphasis added.)"
We also said in OAG 77-532 that where the journals show beyond any reasonable doubt that the bill contains a clerical error, the publishers of the Kentucky Revised Statutes should show the bill as passed by the General Assembly. Referring to page five of OAG 77-532, we also said:
"Further, it is our opinion that the reviser could include this item in her reviser's bill for correcting manifest clerical error, as authorized pursuant to KRS 7.136. This clerical error is as manifest as you could ever find. The reviser's bill would not 'change' the law. It would show what the law really is as passed by the legislature. The reviser's bill on this point would show the explicit recognition by the present General Assembly of the true bill as passed in 1968. See also KRS 7.120 and 7.123."
The Legislative Research Commission has advised that the Bobbs-Merrill and Banks-Baldwin Companies have been notified of the clerical error contained in H.B. 499 and the change should be noted in the published statutes sometime in 1978. Where an obvious clerical error has been made the Legislative Research Commission can correct such an error and, furthermore, the reviser could include the item in the reviser's bill pursuant to KRS 7.136.