WILLIAM WEBB v. CARTER COUNTY FISCAL COURT AND ALICE JOY BINION, COUNTY JUDGE EXECUTIVE
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
RENDERED:
May 27, 2005; 10:00 a.m.
TO BE PUBLISHED
Commonwealth Of Kentucky
Court of Appeals
NO. 2004-CA-000486-MR
WILLIAM WEBB
v.
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM CARTER CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE SAMUEL C. LONG, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 99-CI-00067
CARTER COUNTY FISCAL COURT AND
ALICE JOY BINION, COUNTY JUDGE EXECUTIVE
APPELLEES
OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE:
JUDGE.1
COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE; MINTON, JUDGE; MILLER, SENIOR
COMBS, CHIEF JUDGE:
William Webb appeals from a judgment of the
Carter Circuit Court that found a conflict of interest in his
elected position as county magistrate and his simultaneous
employment with the county road department.
1
It determined the
Senior Judge John D. Miller sitting as Special Judge by assignment of the
Chief Justice pursuant to Section 110(5)(b) of the Kentucky Constitution and
KRS 21.580.
conflict of interest to be of sufficient magnitude and character
to prevent his continued service as a county employee.
We
affirm.
Webb was employed by Carter County from April 15,
1972, until January 1999.
During this period of time, he worked
as a heavy equipment operator, a truck driver, and an assistant
foreman of the county road department.
In November 1998, he was
elected county magistrate and took office in January 1999.
On January 4, 1999, the fiscal court held its first
meeting with its newly elected members.
At this meeting, the
Carter County Judge/Executive, Alice Joy Binion, presented a
list of nominees to be considered for county personnel
positions.2
Webb was not nominated for continued employment with
the county road department.
The fiscal court approved Binion’s
decision not to renew Webb’s employment.
On March 2, 1999, Webb filed this action against
Binion and the fiscal court.
He contended that he had been
deprived of due process; that he had been denied his freedom of
expression; and that his termination from county employment was
otherwise illegal.
Webb sought reinstatement as a county
employee, backpay, and attorney’s fees.
2
The Carter Circuit
The fiscal court’s executive powers include employing personnel to perform
public functions such as those relating to county roads, police, and fire
protection. Kentucky Revised Statutes (KRS) 67.083(3). The authority of a
county judge/executive “to appoint, supervise, suspend, and remove county
personnel” is subject to fiscal court approval. KRS 67.710(7).
-2-
Court ruled in favor of Binion and the fiscal court.
accordingly was entered on February 4, 2004.
Judgment
This appeal
followed.
Webb argues that the trial court erred by concluding
that his duties as assistant road foreman are incompatible with
his duties as a magistrate.
As Webb correctly notes, there are
no statutory or constitutional provisions specifically
prohibiting his concurrent employment as assistant county road
foreman and county office-holder.
However, the holding of more
than one public office at a time has consistently been
disfavored and suspect as a matter of public policy as expressed
in the common law doctrine of incompatibility.
Knuckles v. Bd.
of Ed. of Bell County, 272 Ky. 431, 114 S.W.2d 511 (1938).
Section 165 of the Constitution of Kentucky recognizes
the inherent conflict of holding two offices or forms of public
sector employment at the same time.
It provides as follows:
No person shall, at the same time, be a
State officer or a deputy officer or member
of the General Assembly, and an officer of
any county, city, town, or other
municipality, or an employee thereof; and no
person shall, at the same time, fill two
municipal offices, either in the same or
different municipalities, except as may be
otherwise provided in this Constitution; but
a Notary Public, or an officer of the
militia, shall not be ineligible to hold any
other office mentioned in this section.
-3-
A long series of annotations follows examining numerous possible
conflicts -- accepting some but rejecting numerous others.
The
critical test is a practical consideration of the possibility of
a conflict of interest in the performance of the two functions
to be applied on a case-by-case basis.
Multiple public offices are traditionally considered
incompatible with one another under common-law principles where
the duties of the positions appear inherently inconsistent or
repugnant or when the holding of the two positions by the same
person may be detrimental to the public interest.
Functional incompatibility depends on the
character and relation of the offices and
not on the matter of physical inability to
discharge the duties of both of them. The
question is whether one office is
subordinated to the other, or whether the
functions of the two are inherently
inconsistent or repugnant, or whether the
occupancy of both offices is detrimental to
the public interest.
LaGrange City Council v. Hall Brothers Co. of Oldham County,
Inc., 3 S.W.3d 765, 769-770 (Ky.App. 1999), citing Polley v.
Fortenberry, 268 Ky. 369, 105 S.W.2d 143 (1937); Barkley v.
Stockdell, 252 Ky. 1, 66 S.W.2d 43 (1933).
The doctrine of incompatibility bars an individual
from holding both public office and public employment where one
position is subordinate to the other or is subject to the audit
or review of the other.
-4-
Two (2) offices or positions are
incompatible whenever one has the power of
appointment to or removal from the other and
whenever there are any potential conflicts
of interest between the two (2), such as
salary negotiations, supervision and control
of duties, and obligations to the public to
exercise independent judgment.
LaGrange City Council, supra.
See also 63C Am. Jur. 2d Public
Officers and Employees § 63 (1997).
The policy behind the
doctrine recognizes that it is the duty of a public officer or
servant to discharge his or her duties uninfluenced by the
duties and obligations of another office or position.
In the case before us, the issue is whether Webb’s
renewed employment with the county road department is inherently
incompatible with his position as magistrate.
As a member of
the fiscal court, Webb is authorized and called upon to consider
matters involving salary, tenure, and promotion of county
employees.
KRS 67.710.
Under the reasoning of LaGrange City
Council, supra, this close interrelationship between the
positions clearly renders Magistrate Webb’s concurrent
employment with the county road department incompatible with his
elected office.
In addition, the Carter County Fiscal Court is
directly responsible for the implementation of the county road
program.
It has the authority to open, to establish, or to
alter the location of any public roads as well as to appropriate
county funds for roadwork.
KRS 178.115.
-5-
The Carter County
Fiscal Court has authority over the county road supervisor and
is responsible for approving his proposed policies.
If a
magistrate were to be employed as assistant county road foreman,
he would be subordinate to the county road supervisor while
having the capacity to exert control over his supervisor in his
role as a member of the fiscal court.
Magistrate Webb’s
concurrent public employment and occupancy of this public office
are, therefore, functionally incompatible.
Magistrate Webb has abandoned any argument that his
right to procedural due process was violated.
However, he
argues that the application of the incompatibility doctrine has
resulted in an unconstitutional infringement of his First
Amendment rights of free speech and free association.
Those
rights –- while sacrosanct –- are nonetheless subject to
reasonable restriction.
See Associated Industries of Kentucky
v. Commonwealth, 912 S.W.2d 947 (1995).
As applied in this
case, the incompatibility doctrine did not unduly burden free
speech or free association.
Webb’s rights to take an active
role in a political campaign or to make public statements
concerning political issues were not restrained.
Webb was free
to have his name placed on the ballot, to campaign, and to be
elected to office.
It is unfortunate that he was then forced to
make an unpleasant choice between holding office and keeping his
job.
However, the facts of this case dictate the propriety of
-6-
applying the doctrine of incompatibility to protect the public
interests that are in potential conflict with one another.
incidental restriction on personal rights was justified.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Carter
Circuit Court.
ALL CONCUR.
BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLANT:
BRIEF AND ORAL ARGUMENT FOR
APPELLEES:
W. Jeffrey Scott
Grayson, Kentucky
Michael B. Fox
Grayson, Kentucky
-7-
Any
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.