Request By:
Honorable David L. Curtis
Attorney at Law
Lawyers Building
Bardwell, Kentucky 42023
Opinion
Opinion By: Robert F. Stephens, Attorney General; By: Robert L. Chenoweth, Assistant Attorney General
You have asked the Office of the Attorney General for an opinion regarding KRS 160.180 stemming from a consideration by a local board of education of a recommendation by a superintendent to terminate the tenure contract of a certified employee. On the recommendation by the superintendent to terminate the contract, the local board of education vote was two to two, with one board member disqualifying herself from voting because the teacher in issue is related to this board member. You have asked the following two questions:
1. Does the motion to terminate the contract of the tenured faculty member fail because the motion did not receive a majority vote?
2. Do the provisions of KRS 160.180 prohibit the "interested Board member" from participating in the vote on the motion to terminate the contract?
In answer to your first question, we are of the opinion the motion did fail for lack of a majority vote. For an opinion in point, see OAG 77-673, copy attached.
Your second question presents a novel matter for our consideration. KRS 160.180(4) reads as follows:
"(4) No member of a board of education shall vote regarding the appointment or employment in any capacity of any person related to him as father, mother, brother, sister, husband, wife, son, daughter, nephew, niece, aunt, uncle, son-in-law, daughter-in-law, or first cousin, and the majority vote of the remainder of the board is required in case of appointment or employment of such person."
In issue is not a motion to hire an employee who is related to a board member but the "firing" of the individual. A review of the cases which have considered KRS 160.180(4) shows that each of these cases did involve the employing or appointment situation. Nevertheless, it is our opinion that the intent of the law is to exclude the board member who is related to an individual from casting a negative or affirmative vote regarding a matter of employment concerning the individual. Subsection (4) reads in pertinent part that "No member of a board of education shall vote regarding the appointment or employment. . . ." We think this language is broad enough to cover any personnel action that particularly applies to the employment status of an individual related to a board member in a degree of kinship spelled out in the law. Thus, we believe the board member was proper in disqualifying herself from casting a vote on the motion for termination. We do mention again, the proper course of action for any board member in a situation governed by KRS 160.180(4) is to disqualify themselves from voting and not to abstain from voting. See