SUPERINTENDENT INTERPRETATION
 
Interpretation's Date: September 22, 2003
by superintendent David Stewart
Section: V. Personnel
SubSection: C. Service Personnel

 

Interpretation

September 22, 2003

Ronald E. Ray, Superintendent
Jackson County Schools
P.O. Box 770
Ripley, WV 25271

Dear Superintendent Ray:

I am in receipt of your request for a Superintendent?s Interpretation regarding the legality of classifying all secretaries in a county as Executive Secretaries.

It is not proper for a county to list all secretaries in the county, including school secretaries, on the certified list as Executive Secretaries for pay purposes. No county has received approval to take this action. This interpretation previously was expressed in a Superintendent?s Interpretation dated January 28, 1991. That interpretation provides that if a county wishes to pay all of its secretaries at the Executive Secretary level, it must do so from local funds. However, all secretaries cannot be listed as Executive Secretaries on the county?s certified list.

West Virginia Code ?18A-4-8 defines Executive Secretaries to be ?personnel employed as the county school superintendent's secretary or as a secretary who is assigned to a position characterized by significant administrative duties.? The West Virginia Education and State Employees Grievance Board has determined, in Sanders v. Putnam County Board of Education, Docket No. 01-40-630 (March 28, 2002), that the distinction between the Secretary III and Executive Secretary classifications depends upon the duties and responsibilities of the individual to whom the secretary is assigned, not the secretary's own duties and responsibilities. Thus, the language in the Executive Secretary classification referring to "a secretary who is assigned to a position characterized by significant administrative duties" refers to the administrator or superior to whom the secretary is assigned, not the secretary.

In applying this rule, the Administrative Law Judge in the Sanders case held that a Secretary III/Accountant assigned to the Assistant Superintendent in charge of Food Services, Maintenance, and Transportation was not an Executive Secretary because the assistant superintendent was not an administrator who was assigned to a position characterized by significant administrative duties. As such, it is unlikely that a school principal would be deemed to have significant administrative duties by the Grievance Board.

Further, I believe that the Legislative intent in creating the classifications of Secretary I, II, III, and Executive Secretary was to reserve the classification of Executive Secretary for certain secretaries assigned to a county?s central office. Evidence of this intent can be found in West Virginia Code ?18-5-22, which provides that school employees classified as Secretary I, II, or III may dispense medications to school students. This statute was specifically amended to include the secretary classifications so that school secretaries would be permitted to dispense medication. Significantly, the statute does not include the Executive Secretary classification. I believe that this is because the Legislature did not intend for school secretaries to be classified as Executive Secretaries. If a school secretary were to be classified as an Executive Secretary, that employee would not be permitted to dispense medication at his or her school pursuant to the specific language of West Virginia Code ?18-5-22.

Thus, it is my conclusion that school secretaries may not be listed as Executive Secretaries on the state?s certified list. If a county wishes to compensate its school secretaries at the Executive Secretary level, it must do so with local funds, not state funds.

Hoping that I have been of service, I am

Sincerely,

/s/

David Stewart
State Superintendent of Schools
DS/hld