Clinton County Fiscal Court, during two call meetings within a three-day time period, began dealing with a couple of issues involving local law enforcement and more specifically in one area, that of bonding the elected law enforcement officers.

Initially, the issue began when it was learned that Clinton County Sheriff-elect Jim Guffey had yet to find a company to bond him for the required $1 million that the current sheriff is under and later, questions about bonding–among other issues–pertaining to constables became an issue to be dealt with.

The court first held a special meeting last Wednesday morning, December 17 at the request of Clinton County Attorney Michael Rains that pertained to the bond for the sheriff-elect.

At that meeting, Rains told the court the new sheriff has to be bonded prior to officially assuming his duties and although he hadn’t secured a bond, he (Rains) had learned the previous day there were a couple of companies that were being negotiated with that may bond sheriff-elect Guffey.

At the Wednesday meeting, Rains indicated he hoped that by the time the court had its next already scheduled meeting a couple of days later, the bonding issue would be resolved and hoped to have more positive news then.

However, the Clinton County News was told on Monday of this week by Clinton County Attorney Rains that bonding for Sheriff-elect Guffey had still not been secured and was still being worked on by himself and his staff.

Bonding for the sheriff in his job capacity has been $1 million for the past several years.

Sheriff Rick Riddle told magistrates last week that the sheriff’s office now handles about $3 million dollars in tax revenues annually, prompting Magistrate Mickey Riddle to say that with that total, the county should consider–sometime in the future–of raising the bond requirement for the sheriff’s office.

Also during the December 17 session, the court approved two cash transfers to the jail and ambulance service.

The court then met again two days later, Friday evening, December 19 at the Community Center, which was also a special meeting. All members were present during both meetings last week.

On Friday night, Attorney Rains again addressed the bonding issue for the new sheriff and although no official action pertaining to obtaining a bond was announced, he said the feedback (from possible agencies to obtain bonding) was “getting more positive,” but added they were in a “wait and see mode” at that time.

As of early press time Monday morning, December 22, there was no official word on whether or not the sheriff had actually been bonded. He is scheduled to officially take office in early January.

Also on the agenda for the Friday night meeting was bonding for constables and whether or not the county was responsible for paying the constable’s bond.

Again, County Attorney Rains quoted KRS Statutes in noting the county was not responsible for funding a bond for constables, but those officials can elect to secure their own bonds–which are of relatively low cost, but apparently are for only $10,000.

Apparently one constable had already obtained and paid for his own bond.

Although the amount to pay for constable bonds is relatively low, magistrates were more concerned about county liability issues, including the use of blue lights and sirens by constables.

Rains said that, potentially, “There are always (the possibility of liability) regardless.”

Magistrate Riddle said he felt if the county did, in fact, pay for the constables’ bonds, it would make the county liable for their actions, adding they were still elected officials.

Magistrates Patty Guinn said she felt constables definitely didn’t need to use blue lights and Magistrate Ricky Craig also strongly felt that constables should patrol “in their (own) elected districts.”

Magistrate Riddle suggested that constables pay for their own bonds and if the county decided later to pay for them, they could reimburse the constables for the bond money they paid.

Magistrate Terry Buster, however, said he felt constables needed to be bonded through the county.

All court members agreed that constables probably didn’t need to use blue lights, nor patrol in any part of the county except their own elected districts, but did split on whether or not the county should pay for the bond and which would create the greatest liability for the county–having constables pay or the county to pay–for the bonds.

Following some discussion, Magistrate Buster made a motion that the county pay for the constable bonds, which was eventually seconded by Magistrate Guinn. The vote among court members was split 3-3, with Buster, Guinn and Magistrate Phillip Parrigin voting in favor and Magistrates Riddle, Craig and Hershell Key voting no. All those who voted not cited potential county liability issues. Judge/Executive Lyle Huff broke the tie with a “no” vote, which means the county–at least for now, will not pay for constables bonds.

Judge Huff said after the meeting that his vote was also due to the potential liability issue. He said he supported constables as a constitutionally elected office and for what they do, but felt he voted for what he felt was best for the county.

Since only the “bonding” portion of the discussion was on the agenda and could be acted on officially, the court agreed to Judge Huff’s recommendation to have the County Attorney discuss all the issues raised pertaining to constables with an attorney with the Department of Local Government and get official legal information on the issues and put it on the agenda for the next court meeting in January.