# Opinion No. (1997) > Oklahoma Attorney General Reports · February 11, 1997 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3790614 ## Case - **Full name:** Scott Adkins, State Representative, District 80 - **Court:** Oklahoma Attorney General Reports - **Decided:** February 11, 1997 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion of the court - **Judges:** W.A. DREW EDMONDSON, Attorney General of Oklahoma - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3790614 ## Opinion text Dear Representative Adkins, ¶ 0 This office has received your request for an Attorney General Opinion. You asked, in effect, the following question: Do the leave sharing provisions found in 70 O.S. Supp. 1996, § 6-104.6[ 70-6-104.6 ] allow a school district to operate a "leave bank" in which all donated leave is placed into a common fund? ¶ 1 In order to answer the question is it important to examine the language in Section 6-104.6 which states in pertinent part: A. The board of education of each school district may establish a leave sharing program for all district employees. The program shall permit district employees to donate sick leave to a fellow district employee who is suffering from or has a relative or household member suffering from an extraordinary or severe illness. . . . . . . . D. A district employee may donate annual leave to another district employee only pursuant to the following conditions: 1. The receiving employee has exhausted, or will exhaust, all sick leave . . .; 2. The condition has caused, or is likely to cause, the employee to go on leave without pay or to terminate employment; 3. The board of education of the district permits the leave to be shared with an eligible employee; 4. The amount of leave to be donated is within the limits . . .; and 5. District employees may not donate excess sick leave that the donor would not be able to otherwise take. . . . . K. Any shared sick leave not used by the recipient during each occurrence as determined by the board of education shall be returned to the donor. 70 O.S. Supp. 1996, § 6-104.6[ 70-6-104.6 ] (emphasis added). ¶ 2 Title 70 O.S. Supp. 1996, § 6-104.6[ 70-6-104.6 ], at subsection A, clearly authorizes the board of education of each school district to implement a leave sharing program which includes the donation of both sick leave and annual leave. Section 6-104.6 then clearly specifies the manner in which leave sharing can be accomplished. ¶ 3 Subsection A grants the local board of education power to authorize a district employee to voluntarily donate his or her sick leave to " a fellow district employee." (Emphasis added.) Subsection D lists the requirements that must be met before an employee may donate annual leave to another district employee. Subsection D(1) and (2) uses the language describing the recipient as " the receiving employee" and " the employee." (Emphasis added.) The use of "the employee" indicates that the recipient must be known before leave can be donated to an individual. Subsection K is further confirmation that leave must be donated to a particular individual for a particular occurrence. Subsection K provides in part that: Any shared sick leave not used by the recipient during each occurrence . . . shall be returned to the donor. The shared sick leave remaining will be divided among the donors on a prorated basis . . . and returned at its original donor value and reinstated to the annual leave balance of each donor. 70 O.S. Supp. 1996, § 6-104.6[ 70-6-104.6 ] (K) (emphasis added). ¶ 4 The use of the terms "a fellow district employee" and "another district employee" along with the requirement that unused sick leave be "returned to the donor" at the end of " each occurrence" indicates that the Legislature intended for leave to be donated only to a specific individual for a certain occurrence. When the statute is clear and plainly expresses its intent there is no room for statutory construction. Hughes Drilling Company v. Morgan, 648 P.2d 32 , 35 (Okla. 1982). Had the Legislature intended to allow school districts to provide a common leave bank in which employees could deposit leave for future use of any person needing additional leave, such an intent would have been clearly stated in the statute. ¶ 5 While 70 O.S. Supp. 1996, § 6-104.6[ 70-6-104.6 ] authorizes each local board of education to choose whether or not to establish a leave sharing program, the Legislature has specified the manner in which leave sharing can be accomplished. A school board can only exercise: [T]hose powers that are granted in express words; those fairly implied in or necessarily incidental to the powers expressly granted, and those essential to the declared objects and purposes. . . . Independent School District No. 8 of Seiling v. Swanson, 553 P.2d 496 , 501 (Okla. 1976) (quoting Board of Education of Oklahoma City v. Cloudman, citation omitted). Establishing a common leave bank is not a power that is expressly authorized or fairly implied by the statute. ¶ 6 It is, therefore, the official Opinion of the Attorney General that: The leave sharing provisions found in 70 O.S. Supp. 1996, § 6-104.6[ 70-6-104.6 ] do not allow a school district to operate a "leave sharing bank" in which all donated leave is placed in a common fund and used by any employee who meets the statutory recipient requirements. School districts may only allow leave to be donated to a specific employee who meets the requirements set forth in Section 6-104.6. W.A. DREW EDMONDSON ATTORNEY GENERAL OF OKLAHOMA L. MICHELLE STEPHENS ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/3790614. Public record. Not legal advice.