Request By:
Mrs. Cinder Parsons
Councilwoman
City of Pineville
102 Cedar Street
Pineville, Kentucky 40977
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in answer to your letter of May 16 in which you raise the following questions:
1. Jan. 1, 1980, the incoming city council hired and set salaries for employees. The council has since increased the salaries of four employees. Is this in violation of the K.R.S.?
2. Is the setting of an expense account considered part of the overall salary for said employees?
3. In lieu of receiving the fringe benefit of Blue Cross, Blue Shield Hospital Insurance, can the employee receive the cash value of said policy as salary?
Our response to your initial question would be in the negative. The compensation for city employees is of course fixed by ordinance which can, however, be changed at any time. KRS 64.580 prohibits the changing of the compensation of elected city officials during their term but there is no similar restriction with respect to changing the compensation of city employees during their employment. Incidently, KRS 64.580 will be repealed as of July 15 and superseded by KRS 83A.060.
Our response to your second question would also be in the negative. In the first place, the city cannot establish a lump sum expense account for any officer or employee as this is specifically prohibited under KRS 64.710. Of course, the city is authorized to pay the actual and necessary expenses incurred by its officers and employees in the performance of their duties, however, such expenses must be documented as held in the case of Funk v. Milliken, 317 S.W.2d 499 (1958). It has also been held that expenses incurred by an officer or employee in the performance of their duties are not to be considered as part of their compensation. Manning v. Sims, 308 Ky. 587, 213 S.W.2d 577 (1948).
Our response to your third question would likewise be in the negative. An officer or employee of the city is entitled to receive only that compensation specifically fixed by statute or ordinance. Referring to McQuillin, Mun. Corps., Vol. 4, § 12.193, you will note the general rule with regard to the granting of extra compensation as follows:
"Where an officer performs duties imposed by law he is entitled to the compensation therefor fixed by law and no other. He is not entitled to extra compensation for services performed in the line of his official duty. The same rule has been applied to municipal employees. In the absence of an ordinance requiring pay other than a fixed salary, a city is under no obligation to pay additional compensation. Extra compensation is compensation over and above that fixed by contract or by law when the services were rendered. . . ."
In connection with the above quote, we refer you to the case of Ludlow Board of Education v. Ritchie, 149 Ky. 674, 149 S.W. 985 (1912). We also wish to refer you to the terms of KRS 64.410 (2) (c) which prohibit a public officer from receiving for his services any fee for services not actually rendered.
Thus, in lieu of receiving the fringe benefits of Blue Cross and Blue Shield Hospital Insurance policy paid for by the city, an employee would not be entitled to the case value of the policy.