:.
..:...:
Hon. Geo. H. Sheppard Opinion No. O-6705
Rea Construction of S.B. 3l7 eud H.B.
Bog 173 departmental appropriation
bill en& higher. instltutlons of leern-
ing appropriation bill, respectively,
49th Legislature, concerning the em--
.::;I:
Dear .Ikr. Shepparda pl.oyPlent of husband aud wife.
You request au opinion frolp th5.s Department in the fol-
lowing letter:
“1 shall thank you to exaadne Subsection 19 of
Section 2 OS Senate Bill Ho* 317, Acts of the Begu-
lar Session of the 49th Legislature knowa.,as, the
Departmental AppxopriatUn Bill en&adviiie this de-
part~nt wlqther it 1s p ermissdle ,,SQ~ a hnsbmd and
wiSe ‘.to ybr+ Sk the State’ oa ‘aid &S&or &i~tember 1
of fhla years
Tt is Surther prodded that the Sawgoing pro-
visions restrlctlng emploolleent of both %usband and
wfie shall not epply to any~persims who .wexe empleyed
and recelv%ng .compensatlon i”rou the ‘State at any time
durw t&e month of Jatmsry, l&l*,’
.-::; YChls ‘exception is not carried forwd in ‘the De-
Mll .$Or the ensulng
,::.,
partmeutal Qpropriation ,. bfenn%um.
“Weehave a fact sftuation ,as SoZlowsz A men aud
MS tife haye been, workbwfor the Gtate. in diSSerent
departments for a, long number of yeam. .%!helr..emplgy-
mmt, has been aorttlmouer, They each desire to qontin-
ue work Soti the State after Septexbti aadit 3.s. the
desire of the departuer& heads to Isee$bum Sn the*
present posItions, WIU it lmpossib e Sor both ,of
these eople to ,contlnus ww9.c for the departments In
WhlCh % ey ore now employed on and after September 1
of this pearl
“You -wU.l noblie that Subset&ton 28 OS SeotiOn 2
of the Act fixing the .appropriatlon Sor educational in-
stitutlous for higher learning for the enSPing blenaima
has to do with emtiloyment of husband aud wiSe for the
various ~educatlonal institution&’ W22.l it fmke atly
difference whethsr the husband or Wl.Se in either instance
iw worklug for a: aepartmsnt or for au fnstitutfon of
Hon. George H. Sheppard, page 2.
higher. ~1earnUg as far as Me or her employment Is
concerned aft&-September 1 of this year?
'1 find no restriction against the employment oS
husbaud and wife In the Appro riation Bill for t@e sup-
port an8 maintenance of the e Peemosynary institutions
for the ensuing blennlum. Would It be penaisslble for
on8 spouse to work for a State department and the other
to work for the eleemosynary lnstltutlons?4~
.'For convenlapce sake we have nmbersd the paragraphs of
Litter, sttilng t&e respective qtiestlons propounded by you.
Su~s&tloq 19 of_Ssstlon 2 of Senate Bill 110~ 3l7, in-
sofar as“pertln&t, Is as followsi
tit,~tbgiijibq:~lth $h&napPe of the depar&uent where'gudh
spouse is e@.@yed, ,qnd if such reXationshSp employment
does pot exScrt;‘then sald’,sSSidaVlt shall so &ate and
the head of’$he .&~~m&nt, ,and thi St&& Comptroker
shall wt approve POPpa$m@S or issue wanants or checks
for salarlw td ..6lther. the lzusbnd or wffe nowhereboth
said ~~bsha”&+~‘i@% atd~ empUred in the departments
~f&ps~f3$0 *jeet,~ however, to the f$.l.owI.ug provl-
.
‘khk prov&zloi&qJmreln shek’a piy to department
heads ~and’leempbercl
of CelamtssiOnsb ut not to the manager
and laatr@ of W ~001~ Nate Paz%. We word *departme& 9
‘as used herein ehr$L;mean theas departw3nts napled in %hIa
Act and f&6 S&l Coars&vatIon Board and shall not agpl.y
to &her a&w&x.of We State and the employee0 employ-~
ed ther,eby.*
Subseation 18 of the general provisions of House BIU
173, Insof* as pertinent, ii3 as followsr
- wId is provided that none of the funds appropriated
here-~ sh&lX be pa&d to a husband and wife both &f whom
are employed by any of the several Institukons named
herein. *
-2
Hone George H. Sheppard, page 30
We find no exceptions ta either of these respective pro-
visions comparable t6 the one quoted by you from the current de-
partmental approprfation act.
The,se prohibitory provisions are plain and unambiguous.
It is our opinion that your questions should be answered,
respectively, as iollows: -
It will be impossible for both of these people--,
husband and'Gife--to continue to work Sor'the departments ln whi&
they are employed or any other cf the departments provided for ln
S8nat8Bill For 317.
The clear meaning of the respective riders 1s that
husband and2;lfe may net both be employees of any of the State de-
partment~s at the same time, and likewise they may not both be em-
ployees of any ~of the higher educational. Institutions at the sums
time, There is nothlng, however forbidding their being emploped,
respeutlvely, by a department 8nA an educational lustltutlon at
the Sam8 time.
3. It would be permissible for one spouse to workas axi
.empi.oyee for a Stat 8 department’ and the other tomwork as an 'J@6ry
88 for ti eleemosyi3@ry institutlim, or en educational lm3tltU$L0nj
as given ln our answer to question No. 2. ,
_..,...~
_..__ .+:‘“!m;~:,+&mer
c:.,.: . f.0 pnasMan ?& ls .&~$*&.~&+J&~~:iip(i@f.&&~
tlon;. Subsection (II> of the general provisions contained @i Xas8
Bl.Il No. 173, fixlug appropriations for educatlonti& instit%ltiOW3
of higher learning, expresdy. provides a
, .
“The gene~ral. provisions mad8 ln this Act shall
not apply to athletic br extremurel d8,pmtUIOX3tSt
and as, to these ~exceptlons, the governing board shaU
make such necessary rules and adjustments as may be
deemed advisable. * I
This exception would apply to the general provision of
subS8CtiOp (18) ooncernl.zg the employment of husband and wm.
APFROVEDJUL.24, 1945 v8X.y tl’X&.youZ%i
/s/ Carlos C. AsiAey A!rToRNEy’GswBRALOF S!BXiS
FIR@’ &SSISl!AMTATTORNEY GEIWUL By /s/ O~le~Speer
APPROVED:OPINION COlMCTpEE Ocle Speer, Assistant
BYt BWB, CKJURMU?
OS-Miawb
..---v--