Request By:
Mr. Michael E. Conliffe
Assistant Jefferson County Attorney
Twenty-seventh Floor
Citizens Plaza
Louisville, Kentucky 40202
Opinion
Opinion By: Steven L. Beshear, Attorney General; By: Walter C. Herdman, Assistant Deputy Attorney General
This is in response to your letter of October 15, in which you raise the following questions:
"The question is whether an elected City Comptroller can also act and receive compensation in the capacity of a Commissioner appointed by a Circuit Court Judge to appraise a parcel of real estate and testify as to its value in a condemnation proceeding. In addition, a further question of whether employees of the City of Louisville or Jefferson County can act and receive compensation as a Commissioner described earlier."
The court commissioner to which you refer is, we understand per a phone conversation, one appointed by the circuit court to appraise real estate pursuant to KRS 416.580. Such appointment would at most constitute, in our opinion, an office of the court which means that it is neither a state, county nor municipal office under the theory expressed in the case of Shannon v. Ray, 280 Ky. 29, 132 S.W.2d 545 (1939) concerning Master Commissioners appointed by the circuit court. As a consequence, being at most an officer of the court, there would be no violation of KRS 61.080 or Section 165 of the Constitution dealing with incompatible offices. See OAG 81-108 relating to Master Commissioners, copy attached.
Thus, we see no statutory or constitutional conflict were the city comptroller to be appointed as a special commissioner of the court for the purpose of appraising real estate. The same would apply to employees of the City of Louisville serving as a court-appointed commissioner.
As far as compensation is concerned, we also see no objection to a person so appointed receiving compensation from both sources since neither the city comptroller nor of course employees of the City of Louisville or Jefferson County are constitutional officers whereby their maximum compensation, regardless of the number of public positions held, would be restricted. See Coleman v. Hurst, 226 Ky. 501, 11 S.W.2d 133 (1928).
There is, of course, always a possibility of a common law conflict where the persons concerned cannot perform the duties of both positions with care and ability. See Hermann v. Lampe, 175 Ky. 109, 194 S.W. 122 (1917). This question is, however, one for the courts to decide.