Navigation Top
AGO Logo Graphic
AGO Header Image
File a Complaint
Contact the AGO
AGO Opinions with Topic: Letter Opinion
AGLO 1972 No. 19 >  March 28, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 019

1972 No. This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to public inspection of the minutes of a meeting of the governing body of a public agency under RCW 42.32.030.

AGLO 1972 No. 1 >  January 4, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 001

By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on several questions regarding the legal authority of the State of Washington to carry out an implementation plan to be submitted to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) pursuant to Sections 107 and 110 of the Federal Clean Air Act. 

AGLO 1972 No. 2 >  January 5, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 002 19We are in receipt of your letter requesting our opinion on the following question:  "In view of RCW 36.34.330, is a county forbidden by RCW 36.87.130 to negotiate an exchange of properties, involving the vacation of a county road, where the exchange would enable the county to acquire substantially similar property within the same plat and which also abuts upon the same body of salt or fresh water, where the purpose is to enable the county to retain equivalent public access for park, viewpoint, recreational, educational or other public purposes while allowing a re‑plat of the property involved."
AGLO 1972 No. 3 >  January 11, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 003 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question: "'Is it the duty of the Prosecuting Attorney to represent the County Disability Boards as authorized in RCW 41.26.110?'"
AGLO 1972 No. 4 >  January 18, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 004 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the opinion of this office on three questions relating to the use of balances remaining from the proceeds of bonds issued pursuant to chapter 172, Laws of 1965, Ex. Sess. (Referendum No. 15) and chapter 148, Laws of 1967, Ex. Sess. (Referendum No. 19).
AGLO 1972 No. 5 >  January 21, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 005 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to whether the provisions of RCW 81.44.0971 are permissive or mandatory.
AGLO 1972 No. 6 >  January 25, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 006 By recent letter you have requested an opinion of this office on the following question: "When a wife is awarded support and attorney's fees on an Order on Show Cause pursuant to RCW 26.08.090, is it proper for the Clerk of the Superior Court to, prior to entry of the Decree of Divorce issue either a Writ of Execution or a Writ of Garnishment to satisfy the obligations set forth in the prior Order on Show Cause?"
AGLO 1972 No. 7 >  January 25, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 007 We are in receipt of your recent letter requesting our opinion  ". . . as to whether a Board of School Directors may conduct a hearing with respect to expelling a child from school in executive session, under terms of the 1971 open meeting act."
AGLO 1972 No. 8 >  January 26, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 008 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on certain questions relating to reported current employment policies pertaining to fire fighters employed by the city of Anacortes.
AGLO 1972 No. 9 >  January 28, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 009 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion with regard to the constitutional validity of House Bill No. 15, a measure currently pending before the legislature which proposes to establish a state‑operated sweepstakes.
AGLO 1972 No. 10 >  January 31, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 010 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on two questions relating to the property tax status of some 22,000 parcels of real property located in King county.  Based upon the recent decision of the Washington Supreme Court in Dore v. Kinnear, 79 W.D. 755 (October 14, 1971) [[79 Wn.2d 755]], holding certain 1970 appraisals of other taxable property in King county to be unconstitutional in so far as they were utilized for 1971 property taxes, you have asked:
AGLO 1972 No. 11 >  February 1, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 011 By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows: Where a member of the Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System (LEFF) had been granted and was drawing a disability retirement allowance under RCW 41.26.130, as of the effective date of chapter 257, Laws of 1971, 1st ex. sess., and where such retiree then had a child between the ages of 18 and 21 years of age in attendance at a state higher educational institution, would the legislature's redefinition of the term "child" in section 6 (7) of this 1971 act have the effect of increasing the disability retiree's allowance by an amount equal to five percent of his final average salary in recognition of the existence and status of such a child?
AGLO 1972 No. 12 >  February 2, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 012 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to contracts by state agencies or municipal corporations for tax deferred annuities under the provisions of § 1, chapter 264, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess.
AGLO 1972 No. 13 >  February 9, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 013 We acknowledge receipt of your letter requesting our opinion "at the earliest possible date" with regard to the constitutionality of House Bill No. 44, currently pending before the state legislature.
AGLO 1972 No. 14 >  February 22, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 014 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office as to whether the state printer, in purchasing supplies as provided in RCW 43.78.110, is required to go through the division of purchasing of the department of general administration pursuant to RCW 43.19.190.  We answer this question in the negative for the reasons set forth below.
AGLO 1972 No. 15 >  February 23, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 015 By recent letter, you have asked this office to respond to a question which you have set forth as follows: "Are persons who are employed as policemen or firemen by an employer participating in a program authorized by the Emergency Employment Act of 1971 (Public Law 92-54), ineligible for coverage in the Law Enforcement Officers and Fire Fighters Retirement System by virtue of their being employed by an employer participating in such a program?"
AGLO 1972 No. 16 >  February 28, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 016 This is written in response to your recent request for the opinion of this office on several questions pertaining to school districts.  We paraphrase your questions as follows: (1) May funds derived from the penalty assessment provided for in RCW 46.81.030 be used for any other purposes than traffic safety education? (2) May either a local school district or the state superintendent of public instruction enter into a contract with a computer agency to program school transportation under an agreement whereby any savings accruing to the district or state by reason of the services performed by the computer agency would be divided equally between such agency and the district or state?
AGLO 1972 No. 17 >  March 15, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 017 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion with regard to the legality of financial contributions to an initiative campaign from certain out-of-state organizations.
AGLO 1972 No. 18 >  March 20, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 018 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on certain questions pertaining to veterans' bonuses for service in the Viet Nam conflict under the provisions of chapter 154, Laws of 1972, Ex. Sess.
AGLO 1972 No. 20 >  March 30, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 020 This is written in response to your recent request for an opinion of this office as to whether the term "collective bargaining" as defined in RCW 41.56.030 encompasses all of the subjects which are listed in RCW 28A.72.030 ‑ a part of the certificated school district employees' "professional negotiations" act.
AGLO 1972 No. 21 >  April 7, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 021 We are in receipt of your letter dated April 3, 1972, requesting an informal opinion from this office with regard to the establishment of residential qualifications for purposes of election to the Washington state legislature.
AGLO 1972 No. 22 >  April 11, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 022 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question regarding the eligibility for membership in the state‑wide [[statewide]]city employees' retirement system of certain municipal firemen.
AGLO 1972 No. 23 >  April 17, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 023 Thank you for your letter of April 10, 1972, requesting our explanation of certain aspects of chapter 122, Laws of 1972, Ex. Sess. (pertaining to alcoholism).
AGLO 1972 No. 24 >  April 19, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 024 This is in response to your recent request for our opinion as to the legal rules regarding the impact upon voting residence which results from a voter's absence from his home, and for suggested revisions of present voter registration forms in accordance with those rules.
AGLO 1972 No. 25 >  April 20, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 025 1972 No.This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion with regard to the extent that a state employee may participate in certain partisan political campaigns.
AGLO 1972 No. 26 >  May 1, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 026 This is in response to your recent memorandum in which you requested an opinion of this office on two questions which we paraphrase as follows: (1) May the Public Employees' Retirement Board invest the funds of the Public Employees' Retirement System in savings and loan associations? (2) Assuming that your answer to Question No. (1) is in the affirmative, what standards govern the Public Employees' Retirement Board in making such investments?
AGLO 1972 No. 27 >  May 2, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 027 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question relating to the authority of the state supervisor of savings and loan associations under RCW 33.28.020.  We paraphrase this question as follows:  May the supervisor of savings and loan associations charge a per diem rate for the examination of state chartered savings and loan associations which is higher than the maximum rate charged at the time of the examination by the federal home loan bank for its examinations of federally regulated savings and loan associations?
AGLO 1972 No. 28 >  May 2, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 028 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting an official opinion of this office with regard to the constitutionality of the statutory filing fees which are charged to candidates for public offices in this state under the provisions of RCW 29.18.050 and related statutes.
AGLO 1972 No. 29 >  May 3, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 029 This is written in response to your recent request for an opinion of this office regarding the applicability of the Highway Advertising Control Act of 1961, chapter 96, Laws of 1961, as amended by Scenic Vistas Act of 1971, chapter 62, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess. (both codified in RCW Chapter 47.42 [[chapter 47.42 RCW]]), to signs along state highways advertising or informing of the existence of civic organizations or churches, or other non-commercial organizations.
AGLO 1972 No. 30 >  May 4, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 030 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on certain questions pertaining to the legality of portions of proposed regulations being promulgated by the state director of fisheries governing commercial salmon fishing on Puget Sound waters.
AGLO 1972 No. 31 >  May 5, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 031 This is written in response to your letter, previously acknowledged, requesting our opinion regarding the applicability of the state retail sales tax to the service of cleaning carpets or rugs when the cleaning is done at the customer's place of business.
AGLO 1972 No. 32 >  May 5, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 032 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office concerning the authority of the state board of education to examine and accredit private secondary schools in this state.  We paraphrase your question in two parts as follows:  (1) In view of the enactment of chapter 215, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., does the state board of education continue to have authority to examine and accredit private secondary schools in this state? (2) If question (1) is answered in the affirmative, to what extent, if at all, may the state board of education utilize as criteria for accreditation any standards which are beyond those specifically set forth in § 3, chapter 215, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess.?
AGLO 1972 No. 33 >  May 8, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 033 We are in receipt of your letter dated April 26, 1972, requesting our comments with regard to a certain bulletin which was issued by Secretary of State Kramer to all county auditors and city clerks on March 22, 1972.
AGLO 1972 No. 34 >  May 9, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 034 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the question of whether the board of directors of a school district would be prohibited by any existing state statute or regulation from permitting the use of tobacco by students on the campuses of high schools under its jurisdiction.
AGLO 1972 No. 35 >  May 11, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 035 This is written in response to your letter dated May 4, 1972, requesting our advice with regard to the legal status of the state finance committee, Washington public deposit protection commission and state building authority.
AGLO 1972 No. 36 >  May 12, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 036 By letter previously acknowledged you requested our opinion on three questions relating to certain provisos contained in chapter 275, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess. ‑ the omnibus appropriations act for the 1971-73 biennium.
AGLO 1972 No. 37 >  May 12, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 037 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the scope of the term "covered claims" as used in the Washington insurance guaranty association act ‑ chapter 265, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess.  Your question reads as follows:  "May obligations under insurance policies be properly termed to be 'covered claims' under the above act when such obligations arose out of a declaration of insolvency made after April 1, 1971, but before May 21, 1971, the effective date of the above act, particularly in view of the Ohio case cited in the attached letter?"
AGLO 1972 No. 38 >  May 15, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 038 This is written in response to your recent letter, previously acknowledged, requesting our opinion on two questions pertaining to the appointment of police officers under the civil service system which is provided for in chapter 41.12 RCW.  We paraphrase these questions as follows: (1) Where the mayor or other person empowered by law to appoint police officers in a city governed by chapter 41.12 RCW has submitted a requisition to the civil service commission for a person eligible to be appointed to fill a vacancy, and the commission has responded by certifying the name of the person highest on the eligible list for the class to which the vacant position has been allocated who is willing to accept the appointment, does the appointing authority retain any discretion, at this point in time, to refuse to follow through with the appointment?
AGLO 1972 No. 39 >  May 15, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 039 We are in receipt of your letter dated May 11, 1972, requesting our opinion as to the scope of the term "compensation earnable" as defined in RCW 41.40.010 (8) ‑ a part of the law governing the Washington public employees' retirement system.  You have asked the following three questions: (1) "Does compensation earnable include pay for hours worked in excess of 40 hours per week?"  (2) "If overtime compensation is included, should it be at double time or other special pay rate?"(3) "Does it include a lump sum payment for accrued vacation or other form of termination pay given to the employee at the time of terminating employment?"
AGLO 1972 No. 40 >  May 19, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 040 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on two questions pertaining to the duties and functions of prosecuting attorneys.
AGLO 1972 No. 41 >  May 23, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 041 This is written in response to your request for an opinion on the following question:  May the legislature propose alternative constitutional amendments relating to tax revision and submit them to the voters under a format similar to that provided for with regard to initiatives to the legislature under the 7th Amendment to the state Constitution, whereby the voters could vote first on the general question of tax revision and then, secondly, vote their preference between the two competing versions?
AGLO 1972 No. 42 >  May 25, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 042 By letter dated May 17, 1972, you requested an opinion of this office on the following question: "Is it legal for a public utility to give, or sell for a token fee, PUD property to a city for a public park?"
AGLO 1972 No. 43 >  May 30, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 043 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:  May the Department of Agriculture use funds from the grain and hay inspection fund (RCW 22.09.500) to pay the salaries of grain inspectors who during their regular working hours are participating in collective bargaining with the department?
AGLO 1972 No. 44 >  May 31, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 044 By letter dated May 26, 1972, you have requested the opinion of this office as to whether or not a housing authority may donate its funds to a city within the area of the housing authority's operation, to aid certain of that city's urban renewal projects to be undertaken pursuant to chapter 35.81 RCW.
AGLO 1972 No. 45 >  June 14, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 045 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question:  "Is the expenditure of Traffic Safety Education Funds for the training of school bus drivers a legitimate and legal expenditure under the amended version of RCW 46.81 [[chapter 46.81 RCW]]?"
AGLO 1972 No. 46 >  June 16, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 046 This is written in response to your letter dated June 6, 1972, requesting a formal opinion of this office with regard to a matter which was previously treated in a letter written to you by Assistant Attorney General Rodney Carrier on May 10, 1972.
AGLO 1972 No. 47 >  June 20, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 047 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on the following two questions:  "(1) If the wife of a chief deputy sheriff who is not covered under the Sheriff's Civil Service Act is employed as a deputy sheriff, is that contract of employment prohibited by RCW 42.23 [[chapter 42.23 RCW]]? "(2) Would your answer to question number 1 above be the same if the husband relinquished his position as chief deputy sheriff and reverted to a position as deputy sheriff covered by the Sheriff's Civil Service Act?"
AGLO 1972 No. 48 >  June 21, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 048 We are writing in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows: Are the meetings of the state purchasing advisory committee, as provided for in RCW 43.19.1902, subject to the provisions of the open public meetings act of 1971 (chapter 250, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess.)?
AGLO 1972 No. 49 >  June 22, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 049 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question relating to the administration of flood control zone districts under chapter 86.15 RCW.  We paraphrase your question as follows:  Is the "county engineer" as that term is used in RCW 86.15.060 the same person as the "county road engineer" referred to in RCW 36.80.010?
AGLO 1972 No. 50 >  June 23, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 050 This is in response to your recent request on behalf of the Washington State Bar Association, a state agency, for our opinion on the following question:  "Does the appearance of a nonattorney in a representative capacity at 'all conferences and hearings' as authorized by a new rule, WAC 263-12-020, reportedly adopted by the state board of industrial insurance appeals constitute the unauthorized practice of law?"
AGLO 1971 No. 53 >  March 29, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 053 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting information regarding the authority of the state department of revenue in the area of enforcement of our cigarette excise tax laws against persons legally purchasing cigarettes in another state and then bringing them into this state either for resale or for consumption.
AGLO 1971 No. 54 >  March 29, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 054 Reference is made to your letter dated March 26, 1971, requesting our opinion upon a question pertaining to the authority of a county or city disability board under the provisions of RCW 41.26.150 (1).  Specifically, you have asked whether the authority granted to a disability board under this section to ". . . designate the hospital and medical service available to such sick or disabled member . . ." of the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system authorizes the disability board to limit or to determine the nature of medical services to be provided for a sick or disabled law enforcement officer or fire fighter by his employer.
AGLO 1971 No. 55 >  April 30, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 055 0This is in response to two questions you have raised concerning the optometry act, chapter 18.53 RCW.  First, you have inquired as to the legal distinction between an optometrist and an ophthalmologist as contained in chapter 18.53 RCW.  Secondly, you have inquired as to the meaning of the phrase in RCW 18.53.010, "ascertain the refractive, muscular or pathological thereof;" (particularly with reference to the word "ascertain" as it pertains to "pathological").
AGLO 1971 No. 56 >  March 31, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 056 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on two questions pertaining to House Bill No. 90, presently pending before the legislature.  The bill in question is entitled "An Act Relating to educational opportunities for all handicapped children" and its purpose is set forth in § 1, as follows:      "It is the purpose of this 1971 amendatory act to ensure that all handicapped children as defined in section 2 of this 1971 amendatory act shall have the opportunity for an appropriate education at public expense as guaranteed to them by the Constitution of this state."
AGLO 1971 No. 58 >  April 5, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 058 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion regarding the applicability of Article II, § 19 to a joint resolution proposing an amendment to the state constitution.
AGLO 1971 No. 59 >  April 7, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 059 By your letter of March 30, 1971, you asked our opinion as to which tax collection year the increased property tax exemption granted under section 1, chapter 55, Laws of 1970 2nd ex. sess., applies.  This law became effective July 1, 1970, and amended RCW 84.36.050 by increasing the acreage exemption for schools and colleges.
AGLO 1971 No. 60 >  April 8, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 060 As a follow up on the previous opinions which we have issued during the current legislative session regarding the procedures to be followed by the legislature in responding to an initiative which has been submitted to it under the provisions of Article II, § 1 (Amendment 7) of our state constitution, you have now asked for our opinion on the following additional questions:     "(1) If the Legislature passes an alternative to an initiative to the Legislature, with the addition of both an emergency clause and a referendum, and if the Governor exercises a partial veto, does the bill that originally passed the Legislature take a position on the ballot, or does the measure as signed by the Governor with a partial veto assume a place on the ballot?"
AGLO 1971 No. 61 >  April 12, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 061 This is written in response to your request for an opinion from this office on a question which we would paraphrase as follows:  Are the services of those legislative employees who are employed during a legislative session and are paid solely on the basis of a fixed amount per day of employment without regard to the number of hours or days actually worked covered for unemployment compensation purposes by chapter 3, Laws of 1971?
AGLO 1971 No. 57 >  March 31, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 057 By letter dated March 24, 1971, you requested our opinion regarding the constitutionality and effect of Senate Bill No. 577 should this bill be enacted into law in its present form.
AGLO 1971 No. 62 >  April 15, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 062 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 12, 1971, requesting our opinion as to whether dormatories or housing for students or faculty at a private institution of higher education are presently exempt from property taxation under the provisions of RCW 84.36.050.
AGLO 1971 No. 63 >  April 19, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 063 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on several questions relating to disability benefits payable under the laws governing the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system.  We paraphrase your questions as follows:  (1) May a disability leave or disability retirement allowance granted under RCW 41.26.120 be reduced by such amounts as the member is entitled to receive from workmen's compensation on account of the same disability?  (2) May a disability leave or retirement allowance granted under RCW 41.26.120 be reduced or denied pursuant to a finding by the disability board having jurisdiction that the disability in question was occasioned by "dissipation or abuse" on the part of the member applying for these benefits?
AGLO 1971 No. 64 >  April 20, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 064 This is written in partial response to your letters of March 30 and April 1, 1971, requesting our opinion on a number of questions relating to the duties and functions of the prosecuting attorney in a 7th class county.  You have subsequently indicated a desire to have us answer immediately those questions which we believe can be readily answered on the basis of previous office opinions, decided cases, etc., and then to have us take under consideration the remaining questions which cannot thus be readily answered.
AGLO 1971 No. 65 >  April 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 065 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question:   "May the Legislature grant title to property owned by the State of Washington, presently under the jurisdiction of the Department of Natural Resources, to a private entity; namely, the Castle Rock Fair Board?"
AGLO 1971 No. 66 >  April 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 066 This is written in response to your letter dated April 13, 1971, regarding state employee payroll deductions.  In posing your questions, you have made reference to RCW 41.04.230.  As most recently amended by § 11, chapter 39, Laws of 1970, Ex. Sess., this statute commences with the following authorization:  "Any official of the state authorized to disburse funds in payment of salaries and wages of public officers or employees is authorized, upon written request of the officer or employee, to deduct each month from the salaries or wages of the officers or employees, the amount of money designated by the officer or employee for payment of the following:"
AGLO 1971 No. 67 >  April 28, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 067 This is written in response to your recent letter regarding the procedures to be followed for the appointment of a county director of planning under RCW 36.70.030.
AGLO 1971 No. 68 >  May 3, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 068 By letter dated April 26, 1971, you have requested our advice with regard to the applicability of our opinion to you of September 28, 1970, to the present situation existing in the town of Milton where, at an election held on April 20, 1971, the mayor and four of the five members of the town council were recalled.  As a result of this action, you have stated,  ". . . there exists no majority of the town council capable of meeting to fill vacancies in the council and appoint the mayor under RCW 35.27.140."
AGLO 1971 No. 69 >  May 5, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 069 This is written in response to your letter dated May 3, 1971, requesting our opinion on the following two questions regarding deputy county coroners:   "1. In view of RCW 36.24.160, is the coroner in a third class county permitted to have a deputy, and if so, by what authority?  "2. If the answer to the above question is affirmative, what are the qualifications for such a deputy, specifically, does the funeral home affiliation prohibition of RCW 36.24.175 apply to the deputy position?"
AGLO 1971 No. 70 >  May 7, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 070 This is written in response to your recent request for an opinion of this office regarding the applicability of civil service standards to the appointment of the police chief for the city of Bremerton, a first class, charter city.
AGLO 1971 No. 71 >  May 7, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 071 By recent letter you have requested an opinion of this office; ". . . as to whether or not the number of consecutive terms a State Representative or State Senator may serve could be limited through an initiative to the people."
AGLO 1971 No. 72 >  May 11, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 072 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion with regard to the following questions pertaining to the powers of municipalities employing law enforcement officers of fire fighters who are covered by the provisions of the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system, chapter 41.26 RCW:   "Does a municipality have the authority as a condition of employment to require the employee to sign a 'hold harmless' agreement with a municipality that the employee will not seek redress of any medical expenses pursuant to the Chapter (a) while engaged in outside employment, or (b) participating in certain hazardous activities such as auto racing, sky diving, motorcycle racing?"
AGLO 1971 No. 73 >  May 13, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 073 On the evening of May 10, 1971, during the 60th consecutive day of the 1971 legislature's first extraordinary session, it is reported that several bills (including the major 1971-73 appropriations act and related revenue measures, together with bills relating to workmen's compensation and pensions) were passed by one or the other of the two houses during a period of approximately four hours occurring after 12 o'clock midnight, following which it adjourned sine die ‑ although the observable clocks located in each of the two chambers showed it to be only 11:55 P.M. at the time of passage of these measures.  You have asked for our advice regarding the legal consequences of this reported factual situation.
AGLO 1971 No. 74 >  May 20, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 074 You have requested an opinion of this office on the following question:  "Are any of the members of the 42nd legislature currently eligible for appointment to the Forest Tax Committee to be established pursuant to § 18 of Substitute Senate Bill No. 849?"
AGLO 1971 No. 75 >  May 25, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 075 Last month, during the 1971 special legislative session, the two of you jointly wrote us requesting an opinion outlining the permissible limits within which tax exemptions may be granted by the legislature under our state constitution.  In addition, you asked for our advice regarding the constitutionality of then pending House Bills Nos. 1, 82 and 757 in the light of these constitutional guidelines.
AGLO 1971 No. 76 >  May 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 076 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:  Would a member of the Law Enforcement Officers' and Fire Fighters' Retirement System who separated from service on March 31, 1970, and whose retirement was effective April 1, 1970, be entitled to receive the adjustment contemplated by RCW 41.26.240 on April 1, 1971?
AGLO 1971 No. 77 >  June 11, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 077 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the advice of this office concerning the general authority of a noncharter code city, operating under the mayor-council form of government, to adopt a code of ethics for the conduct of its officers.  Secondly, you have also asked that we consider the validity of several specific regulatory provisions of such a code which you have described as follows:  1. Elected and appointed officials, ethics and conflicts of interest    2. Additional qualifications for elected officials
AGLO 1971 No. 78 >  June 11, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 078 This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of June 7, 1971, requesting our opinion on the following questions regarding initiative measures under Article II, § 1 (Amendment 7) of our state constitution:   "1. Can two or more subjects be incorporated into one initiative to the people or to the legislature?  2. If the answer to question #1 is in the negative, by what methods or standards are the limits of a single subject measured?  3. Can the initiative method be used to prohibit subdivisions of the State Legislature (such as committees, interim committees, and councils) from holding meetings closed to the public?  4. Can the initiative method be used to establish a limitation on the length of time any person may serve in an elective office?  5. Would it be legally permissible to circulate an initiative petition for signatures by publishing it as a portion of a newspaper?"
AGLO 1971 No. 79 >  June 16, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 079 This is written in response to your letter dated June 14, 1971, requesting our opinion regarding the proper statute under which to charge a person who is driving a moving automobile on a public highway, or who is in actual physical control of a vehicle found parked by the side of the roadway, while intoxicated.
AGLO 1971 No. 80 >  June 16, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 080 This is written in response to your letter dated June 8, 1971, requesting us to advise the interim committee on banking, insurance and utility regulation  ". . . as to the legality of entering into a contract for personal services wherein the services are to extend beyond the current biennium, while the full payment for the services to be rendered under such contract is to be made upon the signing of the contract during the current biennium."
AGLO 1971 No. 81 >  June 17, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 081 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office with regard to your authority, as director of general administration   ". . . to charge rent for the exclusive use of marked automobile parking spaces along the roadways and on areas adjoining these roadways on the state capitol grounds."
AGLO 1971 No. 82 >  June 18, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 082 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the opinion of this office regarding the constitutionally permissible use of a certain $50,000 appropriation made by the legislature at its 1971 session.  The appropriation consists of the following proviso in the appropriation for the Eastern Washington State Historical Society:   "PROVIDED, That $50,000 of this appropriation shall be allocated to the Pacific Northwest Indian Center in Spokane."
AGLO 1971 No. 83 >  June 21, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 083 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the opinion of this office concerning the responsibility of justice court judges to account for certain funds collected by their courts under the 1961 justice court act, as amended by chapter 73, Laws of 1971.  Specifically, your question is:  To what extent has that responsibility, as defined by our supreme court in King Cy. v. United Pac. Ins. Co., 72 Wn.2d 604, 434 P.2d 554 (1967), been modified by this 1971 amendatory act.
AGLO 1971 No. 84 >  June 22, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 084 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on several questions relating to certain amendments to the laws governing the public employees' retirement system which are contained in chapter 271, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess. (Senate Bill No. 522) [[S.B. 522]].  For the purpose of presenting your questions, and our responses, in a logical order related to the sequence in which the subject amendatory sections appear in the act, we have rearranged them from the order in which they appear in your letter.  Moreover, due to the number of questions posed, we have further determined it to be more appropriate, for the purposes of this opinion, to set them forth within the body rather listing them all at the outset.
AGLO 1971 No. 85 >  June 23, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 085 You have requested this office's opinion concerning the application of RCW 46.16.090 to the following factual situation:  A local farmer raises turkeys on a large scale.  When the turkeys are ready for market, he transports them in his own truck to a killing plant, where the turkeys are killed, defeathered and placed in the farmer's plastic bags.  The farmer then transports the prepared turkeys to his cold storage warehouse on his farm.  In doing so, he uses the same truck that he used to transport the turkeys from his farm to the killing plant.
AGLO 1971 No. 86 >  June 23, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 086 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the advice of this office on two questions relating to the contractor's registration act, chapter 18.27 RCW.  We have paraphrased your questions as follows:   (1) May a "specialty contractor," who is licensed as such with the state under the provisions of the contractor's registration act submit a bid for a general contract which will require him to perform or use more than two unrelated building trades or crafts?  (2) May a county enter into such a general contract with a contractor who, at the time of bidding, was licensed only as a "specialty contractor" but who, prior to the execution of the contract, has posted the additional bond required of a "general contractor" and thereby has become registered as such?
AGLO 1971 No. 87 >  June 25, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 087 This is written in response to your recent request for an opinion of this office  ". . . as to whether or not the Washington State International Trade Fair, Inc. can qualify for state matching funds in the amount of $40,000 for participation in a foreign fair, and state matching funds not to exceed $30,000 for participation in a domestic fair in the same year."
AGLO 1971 No. 88 >  July 2, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 088 This is written in response to the remaining question which was set forth in your recent letter requesting our opinion on several questions relating to certain amendments to the laws governing the public employees' retirement system which were enacted by chapter 271, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess.  See our previous letter to you dated June 22, 1971, for the answers to the other questions contained in this request.  Your present question relates to the provisions of RCW 41.40.190 (5), which was added to this statute by virtue of § 5 of the subject act.
AGLO 1971 No. 89 >  July 8, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 089 We acknowledge receipt of your letters dated July 1, 1971, requesting our opinion on two questions pertaining to chapter 308, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess. (Second Substitute Senate Bill No. 146), an act relating to "controlled substances"; enacting the "uniform control substances act"; and repealing a number of previous statutes dealing with drugs and drug control in this state.
AGLO 1971 No. 90 >  July 19, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 090 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a problem arising from the dual amendment of RCW 46.68.030 by two separate acts passed by the recently concluded 1971 legislative session.
AGLO 1971 No. 91 >  July 23, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 091 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following two questions regarding expense reimbursement for superior court judges:   "1. A Superior Court Judge, in furtherance of his office, attends meetings at county seat which are breakfast, lunch or dinner meetings.  Typical meetings are of the new Law Library Board, Juvenile Advisory Committee or with Juvenile Staff.  Are claims against the county for the cost of such meals an allowable expense?  2. Are claims for reimbursement for such meals subject to audit by the County Auditor and examination and allowance under RCW 36.22.040?"
AGLO 1971 No. 92 >  July 23, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 092 You recently requested the advice of this office relative to the eligibility of candidates for elective positions in noncharter code cities.  In response to that request, an informal memorandum was issued from this office which construed RCW 35A.12.030.  Upon reviewing this memorandum, and with additional time for reflection, we regret that we must inform you that the answer therein given appears to have been in error.
AGLO 1971 No. 93 >  July 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 093 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting an opinion of this office on several questions pertaining to the permissible uses of the "services and activities fees" to be levied by our state colleges and universities (including community colleges) under chapter 279, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess.  We paraphrase your questions as follows:   (1) May any revenues derived from such "services and activities fees" be used to pay the salaries of college employees who are involved in the administration of financial aid programs, athletics, libraries and instructional resource centers, or counseling and testing?  (2) May any such revenues be used to fund the operational and administrative costs of special tutorial programs or curriculum development activities?  (3) May any such revenues be used to fund the maintenance and operation costs of the college, or university, including general administrative costs, instructional salaries, supplies and equipment?  (4) Where does the legal authority for the allocation of the "services and activities fees" reside, and what are the legal guidelines for the exercise of that authority?
AGLO 1971 No. 94 >  July 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 094 By letter previously acknowledged you have asked for an opinion of this office on a question which we divide and paraphrase as follows:   In a case covered by the provisions of RCW 38.52.110, as amended by § 1, chapter 8, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., where a requisition is made by the appropriate civil defense authority to a school district for the use of its school buses:  (a) May the school district refuse to allow the use of the buses thus requisitioned?  (b) If not, may the school district nevertheless collect a reasonable rental charge for the use of the buses in question?  (c) To what extent will the school district be indemnified with respect to damages to its buses when used in a civil defense situation under RCW 38.52.110, as amended?
AGLO 1971 No. 95 >  August 9, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 095 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the advice of this office on certain questions relating to proposed expenditures by counties and other municipalities for tourism under § 1, chapter 61, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess.  In asking these questions you have explained that a certain county is putting together a tourist folder which is intended to publicize the general area in which the county is located; and that there is a proposal whereby the Chamber of Commerce, the county in question, all cities within the county, and a port district and public utility district within the county will each pay $2,000 toward the cost of the publication of the folder.
AGLO 1971 No. 96 >  August 9, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 096 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows:  Do the rights, privileges and benefits which chapter 292, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., extends to persons who are 18 years of age or older include that of participating in parimutuel wagering at licensed race tracks in this state?
AGLO 1971 No. 97 >  August 10, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 097 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated August 4, 1971, requesting an opinion of this office with regard to the validity and effectiveness of a certain appropriation contained in chapter 288, Laws of 1971, Ex. Sess.
AGLO 1971 No. 98 >  August 23, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 098 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a number of questions relating to the authority of a community college in this state to provide scholarships, loans and grants, deferral of tuition, and certain designated awards to the students enrolled therein.  We believe that the legal issues raised by your request may best be met and resolved through paraphrasing your questions as follows:   (1) May a community college receive and disburse federal funds for the purpose of financing programs authorized by, and approved under, federal statutes without regard to the constitutional limitations which are set forth in Article VIII, § 5 of the Washington constitution?  (2) May a community college receive and disburse, without constitutional limitation, funds contributed or donated by private individuals or other private sources?  (3) Is the expenditure by a community college of funds derived from student activity fees, gate receipts from athletic events and school plays, concerts, etc., and television or radio broadcast receipts related to such events, governed by the provisions of Article VIII, § 5 of the Washington constitution which prohibits a loan or gift of the state's credit or its public funds?
AGLO 1971 No. 99 >  August 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 099 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on two questions which we paraphrase as follows:   (1) May the same person simultaneously run as a candidate for election to the offices of intermediate school district director and director of a school district located within such intermediate school district?  (2) If elected to both offices, could the individual in question simultaneously serve therein?
AGLO 1971 No. 100 >  August 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 100 This is written in further response to your letter of August 17, 1971, requesting an opinion of this office as to whether a county ordinance is binding within the confines of an incorporated city located within such county.
AGLO 1971 No. 101 >  July 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 101 You have requested the opinion of this office on a question we paraphrase as follows:  Beginning January 1, 1972, will the salaries of prosecuting attorneys in counties of the fourth class containing a community college be increased to fifteen thousand dollars per annum solely because of the existence within their borders of such a college?
AGLO 1971 No. 102 >  August 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 102 This is written in further response to your recent letter requesting an opinion of this office with regard to the applicability of chapter 109, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., relating to environmental activities by public agencies, to Expo 74 and the various organizations participating therein.
AGLO 1971 No. 103 >  September 2, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 103 By recent letter you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:  Does the board of governors of the Washington State Bar Association constitute the governing body of a public agency for the purposes of chapter 250, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., commonly known as the "open meetings act"?
AGLO 1971 No. 104 >  September 9, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 104 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated September 2, 1971, requesting our opinion on the following questions:  "1. Is a union shop provision valid and enforceable in a county or municipality which does not operate under a civil service type system?  2. If your answer to question No. 1 is in the affirmative, is a union shop clause valid and enforceable in a county such as King which operates under a civil service type system?"
AGLO 1971 No. 105 >  September 9, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 105 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion regarding the legal effect of an apparent conflict between two statutes relating to the activities of members of the Washington State Pollution Control Hearings Board.
AGLO 1971 No. 106 >  September 9, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 106 This letter is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on two questions pertaining to the payment of disability leave allowances to members of the law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system under the provisions of RCW 41.26.120.  We paraphrase your questions as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 107 >  September 13, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 107 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a matter arising under the provisions of §§ 4 and 5 of chapter 288, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess.
AGLO 1971 No. 108 >  September 17, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 108 By letter dated June 14, 1971, you directed our attention to the following provisions of § 1, chapter 264, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess.  (Senate Bill No. 659):
AGLO 1971 No. 109 >  September 20, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 109 By letter previously acknowledged you requested our opinion on several questions pertaining to the interpretation of § 1, chapter 269, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., relating to school district liability insurance.  For ease of reference we will set forth your questions, and our answers thereto, within the body of this opinion.
AGLO 1971 No. 110 >  September 22, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 110 By letter previously acknowledged you requested our opinion with regard to the necessity for compliance with § 3, chapter 109, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., on the part of the various organizations which may be involved in the proposed exposition, to be known as Expo '74, which is to be held in the city of Spokane in 1974 in accordance with certain other statutes passed by the recent, 1971 legislature.  We paraphrase your question as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 111 >  September 23, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 111 This is in response to your request for an opinion of this office on certain questions pertaining to the rights of certain former members of the public employees' retirement system who are currently participating in the new judicial retirement system, created by chapter 267, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess.  We paraphrase your questions as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 112 >  September 24, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 112 By letter previously acknowledged you requested an opinion of this office on several questions pertaining to the legal authority of the state to levy a tax on property to support state reclamation activities.  We paraphrase your questions as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 113 >  September 29, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 113 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 114 >  September 30, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 114 You have requested the opinion of this office on three questions relating to parking and business improvement areas under chapter 45, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess.  We paraphrase your questions as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 115 >  October 4, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 115 By recent letter you have requested an opinion of this office on three questions relating to the law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement law, which we paraphrase as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 116 >  October 4, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 116 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question:
 
            "Can the City of Kent enter into an agreement with King County whereby the City of Kent will pay a fixed percentage of any sums paid by the County to Metropolitan Transit Corporation, a privately owned transit company, for continuing to provide bus service to the Auburn-Kent area in accordance with schedules previously approved by the Utilities and Transportation Commission?"
AGLO 1971 No. 117 >  October 5, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 117 This is written in response to your recent letter, previously acknowledged, requesting our opinion on certain questions pertaining to the qualifications of ministers to perform marriages in this state.
AGLO 1971 No. 118 >  October 7, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 118 By recent letter you have requested our opinion on two questions pertaining to a proposal by King county to establish and operate a public transit system.  You have described this proposal as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 119 >  October 12, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 119 We acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 7, 1971, requesting our advice as to whether the salaries of county elected officials, as provided for in chapter 237, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., are mandatory.
AGLO 1971 No. 120 >  October 13, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 120 You have requested our opinion regarding the constitutionality of a certain proposed rule currently being considered by the legislative council which would allow the joint sponsorship of bills.  The purpose of this rule, as set forth in the test thereof, is as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 121 >  October 13, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 121 By letter, you have requested an opinion of this office upon a question which, by subsequent telephone conversations, has been refined and clarified as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 122 >  October 22, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 122 By letter dated October 21, 1971, you have directed our attention to the apparently conflicting provisions of RCW 10.04.080 and JCrR 4.02.
AGLO 1970 No. 071 >  May 4, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 071

 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question:  "Is a person employed in a clerical capacity, but who has been deputized by the sheriff and has on infrequent occasions been called upon to perform the functions of a law enforcement officer, entitled to the benefits provided under Chapter 41.26 RCW as amended to date?"

AGLO 1970 No. 072 >  May 5, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 072 You have recently asked for our opinion on two questions which, with your approval, we have paraphrased as follows:  (1) May a legislator who is a director of a nonprofit housing development corporation participate in the consideration of and vote on any bill pertaining to housing authorities at the state or local level without having a conflict of interest?
AGLO 1970 No. 073 >  May 5, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 073 0This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to whether the various veterans' organizations having representative members on the state veterans' rehabilitation council, as provided for in RCW 43.61.010, as amended by § 31, chapter 18, Laws of 1970, may, by virtue of the amendments contained in this act, have the council purchase all of their office supplies through the state division of purchasing.
AGLO 1970 No. 074 >  May 5, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 074 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 30, 1970, requesting our advice as to the authority of a county to levy an excise tax in the nature of a business and occupation tax.
AGLO 1970 No. 076 >  May 7, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 076 By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested the advice of this office on a question concerning the appropriation in chapter 282, Laws of 1969, 1st Ex. Sess., for salary improvements for school district employees.  This appropriation reads, in material part, as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 075 >  May 5, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 075 This is written in response to your recent request for an opinion of this office with regard to the distribution of interest earned on certain short-term investments or deposits of surplus funds of the Washington public employees' retirement system and the Washington state teachers' retirement system.  Your essential question is whether this interest should all be credited to the particular retirement fund whose monies earned it ‑ as is apparently required by RCW 41.40.080 in the case of the employees' retirement system and by RCW 41.32.203 with respect to the teachers' retirement system ‑ or whether an amount equal to twenty percent of this interest is to be set aside in a "reserve account" as provided for in RCW 43.84.090.
AGLO 1970 No. 077 >  May 8, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 077 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the investment of funds of the Washington public employees' retirement system.  Your question reads as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 078 >  May 18, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 078 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on a question pertaining to a certain appropriation made to the state superintendent of public instruction by the 1969 legislature under the provisions of § 1, chapter 282, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.
AGLO 1971 No. 123 >  October 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 123 You have requested the opinion of this office on two questions which we paraphrase as follows:
 
            (1) Should the five‑eighths of one cent per gallon of motor vehicle fuel tax revenues allocated by the legislature to the urban arterial trust account under RCW 82.36.020 be insufficient to pay debt service on the full two hundred million dollars of limited obligation bonds authorized by RCW 47.46.420, may the bonds still be legally issued in the full amount authorized, with the additional debt service to be paid from other motor vehicle fuel tax revenues?
AGLO 1970 No. 079 >  May 18, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 079 By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested an opinion of this office upon a question which we paraphrase as follows:  Where funds have been appropriated to the state aeronautics commission for the purpose of granting financial airport aid to municipalities under RCW 14.04.090, may such funds be granted only to the extent that they are matched equally on a fifty-fifty basis by the receiving municipality from its own funds?
AGLO 1970 No. 080 >  May 21, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 080 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to the applicability of the property tax exemption provided for by chapter 81, Laws of 1970, to certain property which is described in detail in your letter.
AGLO 1970 No. 081 >  May 22, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 081 In the light of the recent approval by the voters of King county of an initiative prohibiting the construction of that county's proposed multi-purpose stadium at the Seattle Center site, you have asked for our opinion on several questions pertaining to the present status of the Washington State Stadium Commission and to the legal ability of the county in question to proceed with the stadium project.  As you have pointed out, the site which was the subject of this initiative was selected as the location of the stadium in 1968 by the board of county commissioners (then the governing body of King county) based upon recommendations submitted to it by the aforesaid stadium commission.
AGLO 1970 No. 082 >  May 26, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 082 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated May 22, 1970, requesting our opinion as to the capacity of certain county elected officials to serve, simultaneously, as state elected officials.
AGLO 1970 No. 083 >  June 1, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 083 By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested an opinion of this office on a question regarding the authority of a port district to borrow funds on a short-term temporary basis.  You have specifically identified your request as pertaining to the Port of Seattle, and have asked:
AGLO 1970 No. 084 >  June 1, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 084 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the selection of hospital district commissioners under the provisions of chapter 77, Laws of 1967 (RCW 70.44.051-70.44.057).
AGLO 1970 No. 085 >  June 2, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 085 By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested the opinion of this office upon a question which we paraphrase as follows:  Upon the dissolution of the township form of government in a county (following an election held pursuant to RCW 45.82.010 (2)) what disposition is to be made of those properties of the dissolved townships which pertained to their cemetery operations?
AGLO 1970 No. 086 >  June 3, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 086 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on three questions pertaining to the computation of pension benefits under the provisions of chapter 37, Laws of 1970 (Senate Bill No. 145).
AGLO 1970 No. 087 >  June 3, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 087 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion with regard to the jurisdiction and responsibilities of the various state and local law enforcement agencies with respect to activities occurring within the area of the Peace Arch State Park ‑ located immediately on the United States side of the Canadian border at Blaine, in Whatcom county.  We understand that your request is prompted by a recent occurrence at this state park during which a number of individuals crossed the international border from Canada and engaged in violent activities in the park and in the town of Blaine.
AGLO 1970 No. 088 >  June 5, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 088 This is written in response to your letter previously acknowledged in which you requested the advice of this office on a matter relating to the scope and effect of certain amendments made by the legislature to the school district budget law by the enactment of chapter 119, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.  We paraphrase your inquiry as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 089 >  June 8, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 089 By letter previously acknowledged, you requested an opinion of this office on a question which, based on further conversations with you, we paraphrase as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 090 >  June 9, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 090 In your previous correspondence you requested an opinion on the question of whether or not a director of a cemetery district can legally serve also as secretary for the district.
AGLO 1970 No. 091 >  June 12, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 091 By letter previously acknowledged you requested an opinion of this office on the following question:    "'Can state agencies, who are not contributing to Group Health and Kaiser (panel medicine plans), and whose employees are currently enrolled in and paying the full premium for such plans, which were approved by the Insurance Advisory Committee, now begin making the state's $10.00 contribution to such plans?'"
AGLO 1970 No. 092 >  June 12, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 092 We are in receipt of your letter dated June 10, 1970, by which you have raised a question pertaining to the investment of certain municipal retirement funds in the shares of a certain open-end investment company pursuant to the authority granted by § 1, chapter 211, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.  (House Bill No. 425).
AGLO 1970 No. 093 >  June 16, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 093 This is in response to your recent inquiry concerning the power of a prosecuting attorney to delegate the responsibility of accepting service of summons and complaints in divorce actions to a county clerk.  As you point out, such service is required under the provisions of RCW 26.08.080, which reads in pertinent part as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 094 >  June 17, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 094 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to a certain appropriation made to the state superintendent of public instruction by the 1969 legislature under the provisions of § 1, chapter 282, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.  The particular appropriation item to which you have referred was made for the purpose of providing funds to the state superintendent for distribution to local school districts in order to fund salary improvements for school district employees.  The appropriation reads, in material part, as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 095 >  June 17, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 095 Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1970, clarifying the issues raised by your earlier request for our opinion as to the authority of a fire protection district to enter into a contract with a city, or with a tax exempt retirement home located within a city, whereby, in return for a contractually stipulated consideration, the fire protection district would undertake to provide fire protection services for certain facilities owned by the city or for the said retirement home located therein.
AGLO 1970 No. 097 >  July 9, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 097 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the salaries of prosecuting attorneys.  We understand your inquiry to be whether the provisions of chapter 43, Laws of 1970, will provide for automatic salary increases for prosecuting attorneys without any necessity for any legislative amendment to RCW 36.17.020, under which the present salaries of all county officers are fixed.
AGLO 1970 No. 098 >  July 14, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 098 By letter dated June 25, 1970, we provided you with our opinion on a question pertaining to property ownership as a qualification for election as a county freeholder under the provisions of Article XI, § 4 (Amendment 21) of the Washington Constitution, for the purpose of formulating and proposing a county charter.  Following your receipt of this opinion, you requested our advice on two further questions relating to certain other qualifications to be met by persons who desire to be elected as county freeholders under this constitutional provision.  Your two additional questions are as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 099 >  July 14, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 099 By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested an opinion of this office upon the following question:           "Does the Department of Social & Health Services, which was created by chapter 18, Laws of 1970, succeed to the authority of the State Department of Public Assistance previously granted by the Governor of the State of Washington pursuant to RCW 43.17.120, to enter into and carry out the agreement with the U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare under Section 221 of the Social Security Act?"
AGLO 1970 No. 100 >  July 15, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 100 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our advice on the authority for, and procedures to be followed with respect to, depriving an unfit parent or parents of a child for whom they are unwilling or unable to care ‑ followed, ultimately, by the placement of the child for adoption without a necessity for obtaining parental consent thereto.
AGLO 1970 No. 101 >  July 15, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 101 This is written in response to your letter, previously acknowledged, requesting our opinion as to the applicability of chapter 64, Laws of 1970 (Substitute Senate Bill No. 139) to surface mining activities on lands located within the boundaries of the Colville Indian Reservation.
AGLO 1970 No. 102 >  July 16, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 102 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the eligibility of certain real property owned by the Pacific Northwest Conference of the Free Methodist Church of North America for taxation on the basis of a "current use assessment" under the provisions of chapter 87, Laws of 1970, commonly referred to as the open space land act.
AGLO 1970 No. 103 >  July 16, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 103 We are in receipt of your letter dated July 8, 1970, inquiring as to the present status of your earlier request for our opinion on a question pertaining to the applicability of RCW 80.36.130 to the provision of free telephone services to any city or town.
AGLO 1970 No. 104 >  July 27, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 104 By a recent letter you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:            Under present state and federal law, together with implementing regulations, must the state department of social and health services (division of public assistance) provide general assistance, aid to families with dependent children and/or food stamp assistance to persons who are on strike or participating in a labor dispute if such persons meet the other economic qualifications and eligibility provisions of the applicable law and regulations?
AGLO 1970 No. 105 >  July 31, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 105 This is written in your response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to an apparent conflict between RCW 59.12.170 and CR 62A.  We paraphrase your question as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 106 >  August 4, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 106 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the recording of an instrument of conveyance with a County Auditor where the legal description of the subject property contained in the instrument is illegible.
AGLO 1970 No. 107 >  August 6, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 107 Thank you for your recent letter in response to ours of April 9, 1970, pertaining to your earlier request for our opinion as to the legal ownership status of a certain tract of land in King County, known as the Highland Community Park.
AGLO 1970 No. 108 >  August 17, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 108 This is written in response to your recent letter in which you request our advice on a question as to whether or not a county is liable to a fire protection district for services rendered by said district outside its boundaries, but within the unincorporated areas of the county when the matter is not covered by contract.
AGLO 1971 No. 124 >  November 4, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 124 This is written in response to your request for our opinion regarding the procedures to be followed in computing the compensation of a retired superior court judge serving as a pro tempore judge of the Washington Supreme Court under Article IV, § 2 (a), Amendment 38, of the state constitution.  We paraphrase your questions as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 125 >  November 8, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 125 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to whether in an unlawful detainer action under chapter 59.12 RCW, the payment of a jury fee is required by RCW 4.44.100 if a jury trial is demanded by either party.
AGLO 1971 No. 126 >  November 10, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 126 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question:
 
            "'Would there be a constitutional prohibition against the Legislature adopting a rule which stated that only committee chairmen or the respective party leadership could request title only legislation?'"
AGLO 1971 No. 127 >  November 10, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 127 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:
 
            Where a county, by reason of an increase in its population according to the decennial federal census, has become a class A county in accordance with the population criteria set forth in RCW 36.13.010, is a county boundary review board automatically established within such county by operation of law?
AGLO 1971 No. 128 >  November 15, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 128 By letter previously acknowledged you requested an opinion of this office relating to the powers of the department of general administration with regard to the purchase of equipment and material for the state.  As set forth in your letter, your question reads as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 129 >  November 24, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 129 By letter previously acknowledged you requested our opinion on certain questions pertaining to the conduct of bingo and amusement games under the provisions of chapter 280, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess.  We paraphrase the two questions to be herein considered as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 130 >  November 29, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 130 May the proceeds of advance refunding bonds issued pursuant to chapter 39.53 RCW, which are in the custody of a county treasurer, be invested in time certificates of deposit or time savings accounts in a commercial bank under the provisions of §§ 13 and 26 of chapter 193, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.?
AGLO 1971 No. 131 >  December 7, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 131 ". . . Is a Park and Recreation District organized under RCW 36.69.010 empowered to issue general obligation bonds and provide for the retirement thereof by annual levies without a vote of the people?"
AGLO 1971 No. 132 >  December 7, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 132 "(1) Can a Park and Recreation District formed under the provisions of RCW 36.39 in a third class county, upon appropriate approval by the voters of the district, levy an annual tax for the purpose of retiring a general obligation bond where such annual tax would result in taxation over the 40 mill limit?
AGLO 1971 No. 133 >  December 10, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 133 (1) Does the interagency committee for outdoor recreation, in allocating moneys from the outdoor recreation account to public bodies for the acquisition and development of outdoor recreation land under their respective jurisdictions, have the authority to include moneys to be used for payment of relocation expenses incurred by persons displaced by the land acquisitions thus being funded?
AGLO 1971 No. 134 >  December 13, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 134 We are in receipt of your letter requesting our opinion as to the proper interpretation to be given to the term "mentally ill person" as defined in RCW 71.02.010 relating to commitment proceedings.
AGLO 1971 No. 135 >  December 21, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 135 "No bill shall become a law unless on its final passage the vote be taken by yeas and nays, the names of the members voting for and against the same be entered on the journal of each house, and a majority of the members elected to each house be recorded as voting in its favor."
AGLO 1971 No. 136 >  December 27, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 136 "May tax funds generated by a county pursuant to RCW 71.20.110 be used by the county to pay the costs incurred by it in the detention of persons awaiting sanity hearings in a maximum security psychiatric facility maintained by a local private hospital with which the county has a service contract?"
AGLO 1971 No. 137 >  June 21, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 137 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion regarding the proper statutory procedure to be followed by Pasco School District No. 1 in selling "an old unused school building and site" to the city of Pasco.  You have stated that the property in question may have an appraised value exceeding $35,000, and have asked:
AGLO 1971 No. 138 >  November 19, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 138 Attached hereto you will find my memorandum of law to you regarding the present authority of a community college board of trustees to provide an overseas, in residence, high school completion program for United States servicemen in cooperation with the Department of the Army and the Veterans Administration.
AGLO 1970 No. 1 >  January 9, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 001 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on a question pertaining to the relationship between two statutes which were passed by the 1969 legislature; namely, chapters 188 and 234, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.  We paraphrase the issue raised by your request as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 2 >  January 13, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 002 By letter previously acknowledged, you requested our opinion as to whether the present provisions of RCW 46.61.470 ‑ commonly known as the "speed trap" law ‑ preclude the admission in court of evidence as to the speed of a motor vehicle which is obtained through the use of a certain electronic computer device known as Vascar.
AGLO 1970 No. 3 >  January 13, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 003 Responding to your letter dated December 31, 1969, we would refer you to the decision of the Washington Supreme Court in State ex rel. Evans v. Brotherhood, Etc., 41 Wn.2d 133,247 P.2d 787 (1952), which was cited in our earlier letter to you of December 24, 1969.
AGLO 1970 No. 4 >  January 14, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 004 By letter dated January 12, 1970, you requested the opinion of this office as to the "constitutionality and/or legality" of the recent decision of the director of the department of public assistance to implement a plan of program changes with respect to the expenditure of funds appropriated to the department of public assistance for the 1969-71 biennium, as more fully set forth in a document headed "Appropriation Balancing Program," referred to in your letter.
AGLO 1970 No. 5 >  January 14, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 005 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on three questions pertaining to the rights of public school age children to attend a public school located in a school district other than that in which they reside.
AGLO 1970 No. 109 >  August 17, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 109 This is in reply to your letter in which you ask our opinion as to whether the property tax exemption granted under RCW 84.36.250 extends to watershed acreage owned by a nonprofit corporation engaged in distributing water to its shareholders.
AGLO 1970 No. 006 >  January 16, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 006 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on a question pertaining to the tax exempt status on a private, non-profit [[nonprofit]]cemetery.
AGLO 1970 No. 007 >  January 19, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 007 We have your letter of January 16, 1970, requesting the advice of this office as to whether service as a member of a fire‑fighting organization acquired by a municipality must have been continuous in order to be creditable under RCW 41.18.165.
AGLO 1970 No. 008 >  January 19, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 008 I have been asked to reply to your letter of January 15, 1970, regarding the publication of proposed revisions to zoning plans.
AGLO 1970 No. 009 >  January 20, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 009 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the question pertaining to the eligibility of a certain individual for an exemption from the first fifty dollars in real property taxation pursuant to RCW 84.36.128.
AGLO 1970 No. 010 >  January 20, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 010 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on several questions pertaining to the availability of revenues derived from state excise taxes on the sale of cigarettes to fund the payment of bonuses to the veterans of the current conflict in Viet Nam, as contemplated by a bill (House Bill No. 9) which is currently pending before the legislature.  Reading your request with the provisions of this bill in mind, we may paraphrase the questions raised by your request as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 011 >  January 26, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 011 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 22, 1970, requesting our opinion as to the applicability of RCW 49.48.010 to the practice of a certain sewer district of compensating its employees with time off rather than cash for overtime work.
AGLO 1970 No. 012 >  January 26, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 012 This is written in response to your recent request for an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 013 >  January 28, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 013 By letter dated January 24, 1970, you have raised several questions pertaining to the determination of legislative intent with respect to an item or items contained in an appropriation bill.  You have raised these questions against the background of our opinion to you of January 14, 1970, relative to the scope of the current 1969-71 appropriation to the department of public assistance, as set forth in § 1, chapter 282, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess., at pages 2735-2738.
AGLO 1970 No. 014 >  January 29, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 014 This is written in response to your recent request for an opinion of this office on the following question:
 
            "If Senate Bill 68 passes both Houses of the Legislature, will it be law at any time prior to 30 days after the election called for in Section 4 of the bill?"
 
            We answer this question in the negative for the reasons set forth below.
AGLO 1970 No. 015 >  January 29, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 015 This is written in response to your request for an opinion of this office on several questions which we paraphrase as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 016 >  February 3, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 016 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 28, 1970, requesting our opinion on three questions pertaining to the state's responsibility for providing educational facilities for handicapped children.  Basically, your questions pertain to the ramifications of the preamble section to Article IX of our state Constitution, which reads as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 017 >  February 5, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 017 This will respond to your recent inquiry posing certain questions about succession to the office of the Speaker of the House of Representatives.  We paraphrase and restate your questions as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 018 >  February 11, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 018 This is written in response to your letter dated January 29, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to proceedings before a county boundary review board under chapter 36.93 RCW.  You have made particular reference to RCW 36.93.120, which provides that:
AGLO 1970 No. 019 >  February 20, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 019 This is written in response to your letter dated February 11, 1970, by which you transmitted to us a copy of a document which you denominated as "Initiative Measure No. 249."  Your letter requested that we prepare an official ballot title for the proposition set forth in this document pursuant to the provisions of RCW 29.79.040.  The full text of this proposition reads as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 020 >  February 20, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 020 This is in response to your oral inquiry as to the legality of accountants utilizing the 1969 professional service corporation act in light of specific provisions found in the accountancy law.
AGLO 1970 No. 021 >  February 20, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 021 It appears from your letter that some time ago the Grays River Logging Company apparently made a double payment to forfeit bail on a number of overweight violations for its trucks.  The weight violation tickets are, of course, written and issued to the driver of the vehicle.  As often happens on weight violations, the driver simply delivers the traffic citation to the trucking company, which in turn posts and forfeits the bail for the weight violation.  A representative of the Grays River Logging Company apparently delivered a check for $243 to the North District Justice Court of Pacific County for some nine weight violation citations.  After delivering the check, it was brought to the company's attention that one of the drivers had already paid a $35.00 bail for one of the included citations.  The company then wrote another check for $208 and delivered it to the court with the understanding that the first check would be destroyed.  The present problem arose when both checks were cashed by the court and deposited in the court account, instead of destroying the first check for $243.  As a result, there is no dispute that there has, in fact, been a double payment for some nine traffic citations, totalling $243.
AGLO 1970 No. 110 >  August 17, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 110 By letter dated July 23, 1970, receipt of which is acknowledged, you requested our opinion upon the following question: "Can land embraced within the corporate limits of the City of Lynden (a third-class city), Whatcom County (a second-class county), Washington, be included within the boundaries of a cemetery district?"
AGLO 1970 No. 111 >  August 17, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 111 We acknowledge receipt of your letter of August 5, 1970, raising a question as to the amount of salary payable to the court reporter for the judicial district comprising Chelan County.
AGLO 1970 No. 112 >  August 17, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 112 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our advice on a question pertaining to the election of members of a "Community Council."  You have asked:   "Can the election of members of Community Councils or Community Forums be held commensurate with a state general election? If so, what is the proper procedure?
AGLO 1970 No. 113 >  August 18, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 113 You have asked for our opinion on the following question:   Are the bond requirements of § 5, chapter 153, Laws of 1965 (RCW 18.44.050), known as the escrow registration act, applicable to individuals, partnerships or corporations engaged in the closing of real estate transactions?
AGLO 1970 No. 114 >  August 19, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 114 By a letter previously acknowledged, you have requested the opinion of this office on two questions which we paraphrase as follows:  (1) Under the applicable statutes and rules, may shippers propose changes in the rates of regulated motor carriers to the Utilities and Transportation Commission for hearing and disposition under WAC 480-12-295?  (2) In the event that the first question is answered in the negative, is there any other procedure authorized by statute or rule which would permit shippers to seek changes in carrier rates?   It is our opinion that the first of these questions requires a negative reply and that the second question may be answered affirmatively, as detailed below.
AGLO 1970 No. 115 >  August 31, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 115 You have requested our opinion on the application of the conveyance stamp tax to an assignment of a vendor's interest in a real estate contract.  We paraphrase your question as follows:   Is an assignment, accompanied by a deed, of a vendor's interest in a real estate contract which contains a forfeiture clause, subject to the excise tax upon conveyances of real property imposed by RCW 82.20.010?
AGLO 1970 No. 116 >  August 31, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 116 We are in receipt of your letter dated August 26, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to disability benefits under the laws governing the new Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system.
AGLO 1970 No. 117 >  September 2, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 117 We are writing in response to your recent letter posing a question as to the extent of the authority of a board of county commissioners to require a subdivider of land to develop and provide public access areas, together with appropriate facilities thereon, as part of a subdivision fronting upon a lake, river or similar waterway.
AGLO 1970 No. 118 >  September 2, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 118 You have recently requested our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows:  Under the provisions of Article VII, § 10 (Amendment 47) to the Washington State Constitution, may the legislature enact a statute which would exempt from taxation the first $5,000 of assessed valuation of property owned and resided in by retired property owners?
AGLO 1970 No. 119 >  September 9, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 119 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our advice on a question pertaining to the authority of a board of county commissioners under the provisions of RCW 70.44.030.
AGLO 1970 No. 120 >  September 23, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 120 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office as to the constitutionality of a certain proposed bill relating to student and faculty conduct and discipline at our various state institutions of higher education.
AGLO 1970 No. 121 >  September 28, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 121 You have advised us that following the recent recall of five members of the Tacoma city council, you were requested to appoint some qualified person or persons to the city council of that city in order to fill the remaining vacancies in the manner provided for in the city charter.  Before proceeding to fulfill this request, you have asked for our opinion on certain questions pertaining to your authority to do so.  Your questions are as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 122 >  September 29, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 122 By letter previously acknowledged you requested an opinion of this office on a question involving the distribution of certain public utility district privilege tax revenues under RCW 54.28.090.  As we understand it, the factual situation giving rise to this question is as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 124 >  September 30, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 124 This is written in response to your letter dated September 28, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to RCW 29.18.110, which provides, in pertinent part, that:
AGLO 1970 No. 123 >  September 29, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 123 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested our advice as to the present state of the law governing the possession of marijuana by members of the medical profession.
AGLO 1970 No. 125 >  September 30, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 125 This is written in response to your letter dated September 23, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the validity of a certain county ordinance relating to platting and subdivisions.
AGLO 1970 No. 023 >  February 25, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 023 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested our opinion on a question pertaining to a certain function of the state personnel board.  We paraphrase your question as follows:
 
            May the state personnel board, by rule adopted pursuant to RCW 41.06.150, provide that the function of adopting and revising the state comprehensive classification plan for all positions in the classified service (as contemplated by this section) shall be performed by the director of personnel rather than by the personnel board itself?
AGLO 1970 No. 126 >  October 1, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 126 By letter dated September 25, 1970, you have requested the advice of this office concerning the realignment of boundaries of intermediate school districts.
AGLO 1970 No. 024 >  March 2, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 024 In response to your letter dated February 25, 1970, we know of no legal obstacle to the use of the same design in school construction in more than one public school or school district ‑ except to the extent that, in a particular case, permission to use a particular plan or design must be obtained from the architect or other designer who originally produced it.
AGLO 1970 No. 025 >  March 3, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 025 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 27, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the compensation of a district justice court judge who is also serving as municipal judge of a city in accordance with chapter 3.46 RCW.
AGLO 1970 No. 127 >  October 5, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 127 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question relating to the election of superior court judges:
AGLO 1970 No. 026 >  March 3, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 026 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 27, 1970, requesting our opinion as to the composition of a county law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' disability board in the case of a county, such as yours, which has no "fire fighters" as defined in RCW 41.26.030 (4).
AGLO 1970 No. 027 >  March 5, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 027 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 20, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the levying of property taxes by a port district under RCW 53.36.070.
AGLO 1970 No. 028 >  March 5, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 028 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the authority of a public hospital district to construct a medical clinic and then lease the facility for operational purposes to one or more doctors.
AGLO 1970 No. 029 >  March 5, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 029 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the authority of Grays Harbor County:
AGLO 1970 No. 128 >  October 6, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 128

 By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested the opinion of this office on the following two questions concerning the authority of the state auditor:   (1) "Does the State Auditor possess the statutory authority to conduct so-called performance or management audits of state agencies under either RCW 43.88 or RCW 43.09 [[chapters 43.88 and 43.09 RCW]], or any other pertintent [[pertinent]]statute?"  (2) "If the State Auditor possesses such statutory authority, does he, in turn, have the power and authority to incorporate audit exceptions relating to agency or management practices in his reports of post audits, as required by RCW 43.09.310?"

AGLO 1970 No. 031 >  March 11, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 031 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on two questions pertaining to the eligibility of a certain individual for membership in the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system.  As we understand it, the individual in question is currently employed on a part-time basis as town marshal of the Town of Hunts Point ‑ and also on a part-time basis as town marshal of the adjacent Town of Yarrow Point.  We paraphrase your questions as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 032 >  March 16, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 032 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 11, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to membership in the new Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system.
AGLO 1970 No. 033 >  March 17, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 033 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to excess property tax levies, as affected by the provisions of chapter 92, Laws of 1970.
AGLO 1970 No. 034 >  March 17, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 034 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 13, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the authority of a park and recreation district organized under chapter 36.69 RCW to provide for leisure time facilities in the nature of gymnasiums and arts and crafts centers.
AGLO 1970 No. 035 >  March 17, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 035 Reference is made to your letter dated November 25, 1969, requesting our opinion on several questions pertaining to the transitional procedures to be followed by a certain city in order to come under the provisions of the optional municipal code (chapter 35A, RCW).  Following receipt of your letter we had several conversations with you from which we were led to understand that the city in question was the city of Renton, and that the particular option selected by it under the provisions of the code was that of becoming a noncharter code city, as provided for in chapter 35A.02 RCW, operating under the mayor-council plan of government provided for in chapter 35A.12 RCW.1/
AGLO 1970 No. 130 >  October 14, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 130 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion upon a question pertaining to the status of the South Campus of Big Bend Community College, upon its ceasing to be used for community college purposes.
AGLO 1970 No. 036 >  March 18, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 036 Does the Washington State Council on Aging have authority to provide grants of state funds to local communities to operate specific services on aging?
AGLO 1970 No. 037 >  March 18, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 037 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 17, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the authority of local governmental units to combine in employing on their behalf a professional negotiator in public employee collective bargaining matters.
AGLO 1970 No. 038 >  March 18, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 038 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the terms of public library board members who are governed by the provisions of RCW 27.12.190.  We paraphrase your question as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 039 >  March 19, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 039 By letter previously acknowledged you requested our opinion on a question pertaining to the authority of the state department of public assistance to provide medical assistance to skilled nursing homes and intermediate care facility patients in facilities located outside of the state of Washington.  You have suggested in your letter that the department's authority in this regard may have been affected by the recent decision of the United States Supreme Court pertaining to the constitutionality of residential eligibility for state public assistance payments.
AGLO 1970 No. 040 >  March 20, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 040 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 18, 1970, requesting our opinion on the following question:
 
            ". . .  Do the provisions of RCW 84.56.340 give the County Treasurer the authority to amend the tax rolls between the date of receipt thereof from the County Auditor and the collection of taxes based upon?"
AGLO 1970 No. 041 >  March 25, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 041 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on a question pertaining to the application of chapter 251, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.  Specifically, you have asked whether the effect of this enactment, amending RCW 84.60.010 with regard to property tax liens, would be to provide a lien upon personal property with respect to unpaid real property taxes ‑ and conversely, to provide a lien upon real property with respect to unpaid personal property taxes.
AGLO 1970 No. 042 >  March 25, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 042 This is written in response to your letter dated March 20, 1970, regarding the matter of the anticipated resignation of the Pend Oreille County superintendent of schools.
AGLO 1970 No. 043 >  March 25, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 043 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion as to the retroactive applicability of the annual two percent pension increases for certain law enforcement officers, fire fighters, and their survivors which were provided for by the 1970 legislature through its enactment of chapter 37, Laws of 1970 (Senate Bill No. 145).
AGLO 1970 No. 044 >  March 25, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 044 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 18, 1970, requesting information with respect to the eligibility of members of the police and fire departments at Washington State University for coverage under the new Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system.
AGLO 1970 No. 045 >  March 25, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 045 Reference is made to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question as paraphrased:
AGLO 1970 No. 046 >  March 25, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 046 You have requested our opinion as to the methods by which a county road may be established.
AGLO 1970 No. 047 >  March 26, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 047 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on a question pertaining to the investment of certain retirement funds in the shares of open end investment companies (i.e., mutual funds).  We paraphrase your question as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 048 >  March 27, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 048 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion as to the authority of two school district boards of directors to enter into a contract under which one of the two districts would own and operate a system of school buses for the transportation of pupils attending schools in both of the two districts.
AGLO 1970 No. 049 >  March 30, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 049 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 24, 1970, requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the platting and subdivision of land under the provisions of chapter 271, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess. (now codified as chapter 58.17 RCW).
AGLO 1970 No. 050 >  March 31, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 050 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we have paraphrased as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 051 >  March 31, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 051 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the exemption of certain property from taxation under the provisions of chapter 55, Laws of 1970 (Senate Bill No. 144).  As we understand it from your letter (and enclosures thereto) the issue raised by your question may be paraphrased as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 052 >  March 31, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 052 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to the authority of a certain water district to expend district funds on a lawsuit designed to enjoin the city of Seattle from introducing flouride in the water supply of the district.
AGLO 1970 No. 053 >  March 31, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 053 By letter dated March 26, 1970, you requested our interpretation of the word "inhabitants" as contained in RCW 35A.03.010.
AGLO 1970 No. 054 >  April 1, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 054 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on a question pertaining to the payment of compensation to certain persons while serving as superior court judges pro tempore.  We paraphrase your question as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 055 >  April 2, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 055 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion with regard to RCW 28.57.200, as amended by § 3, chapter 86, Laws of 1970 (House Bill No. 13).
AGLO 1970 No. 056 >  April 9, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 056 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 131 >  October 15, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 131 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting an opinion of this office on two questions pertaining to the provisions of chapter 28A.72 RCW.  Your two questions read as follows:   "1. What connotation and definition shall be given to the term 'negotiate' as used in this chapter?  "2. Does the term 'negotiate' require or mandate a concluding written agreement on matters in which the school board and local education association have concurred?"
AGLO 1970 No. 057 >  April 9, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 057 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion regarding the appointment of members of a board of trustees of a community college district under the provisions of RCW 28.85.100, as amended by § 7, chapter 261, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.  Your question is whether the statute, as amended (including the governor's veto of a portion of the proposed amendment) now permits the governor to make appointments to the various boards of trustees of the several community college districts without reference to a list of nominees submitted by legislator composed nominating committees?
AGLO 1970 No. 132 >  October 9, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 132 In response to your latest letter of October 7, 1970, regarding the occupancy of the Asotin county sheriff's office following the anticipated resignation of the incumbent on October 15, 1970, we refer you to the decision of the Washington Supreme Court in State ex rel. Sears v. Gilliam, 93 Wash. 248, 160 Pac. 757 (1916).
AGLO 1970 No. 058 >  April 10, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 058

 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our advice as to the meaning of the term "quasi-municipal corporation" as contained in chapter 30, Laws of 1970 (Senate Bill No. 61) ‑ and to whether it includes such groups as a chamber of commerce, "Forward Thrust", the Washington Education Association, and the like.

AGLO 1970 No. 133 >  October 14, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 133 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated October 8, 1970, regarding the funding of a pest control district organized under the provisions of chapter 152, Laws of 1919 (chapter 17.12 RCW).
AGLO 1970 No. 059 >  April 13, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 059 Reference is made to your recent letter requesting our opinion on two questions pertaining to superior court reporters.
AGLO 1970 No. 060 >  April 13, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 060 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on the procedure to be followed by a seventh class county in adopting and implementing the provisions of the 1961 justice court act ‑ chapter 299, Laws of 1961.  We paraphrase your question as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 134 >  October 16, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 134 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting an opinion of this office on a question pertaining to the applicability of RCW 58.17.200 (§ 20, chapter 271, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.) to the sale or transfer of certain lots, tracts, or parcels of land.
AGLO 1970 No. 061 >  April 14, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 061 By letter previously acknowledged you requested our opinion as to the time when an election must be held to fill an existing vacancy on the board of commissioners of the Port of Tacoma.  We paraphrase your question as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 062 >  April 15, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 062 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 135 >  October 16, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 135 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on several questions pertaining to the ascertainment of disability benefits under the laws governing the new Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system.
AGLO 1970 No. 063 >  April 15, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 063 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 13, 1970, requesting our opinion as to the monetary jurisdiction of a district justice court judge operating under the provisions of the 1961 justice court act.
AGLO 1970 No. 136 >  October 20, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 136 By letter previously acknowledged, you requested our opinion concerning two questions which we paraphrase as follows:  1. Can a city use the one‑half cent per gallon motor vehicle fuel tax distributable to it under RCW 82.36.020 (5) to finance the new construction or reconstruction of local arterials which do not conform to state design standards?   2. Can a city pledge this one‑half cent per gallon motor vehicle fuel tax to secure or be used to amortize general bond indebtedness incurred by a city for the purpose of improving its arterials?
AGLO 1970 No. 064 >  April 15, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 064 We acknowledge receipt of your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question pertaining to the date for an election to fill certain vacancies on the school board of the Arlington School District ‑ which positions are presently held by appointees of the intermediate school board having jurisdiction as specified in RCW 28.63.020.
AGLO 1970 No. 065 >  April 17, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 065 This is in answer to your request for an opinion on the following question:
 
            "Pursuant to RCW 28.41.130, may the Superintendent of Public Instruction provide minimum state funding (currently $371 per enrolled student) for attendance support of pupils in grades 10, 11 and 12 when the State Board of Education has denied approval status to the high school program in which the students are currently enrolled?"
AGLO 1970 No. 137 >  October 20, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 137 This is written in response to your request for our opinion on three questions pertaining to county right-of-way acquisitions.  We paraphrase your questions as follows:  (1) Does a dedication deed of right-of-way by a land owner to a county convey fee simple title to the right-of-way property to the county?  (2) What is the effect of a dedication of a plat to a county which contains the following statement:   ". . .  The undersigned hereby dedicate to the public use the streets shown thereon.  There is reserved to any public utility or municipality the right to lay water mains, sewer lines, gas mains, or to erect transmission lines within the above described subdivision in the streets thereon."?   (3) Does a county, by acceptance of a dedicated road by either the right-of-way deed considered in question (1), or a plat dedication such as that considered in question (2), acquire any rights to gravel under the roadway?
AGLO 1970 No. 066 >  April 21, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 066 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 17, 1970, pertaining to the applicability of the real estate excise tax (chapter 28.45 RCW) to a sale of property from an individual as a sole proprietor to ". . . his family corporation."
AGLO 1970 No. 138 >  October 20, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 138 We acknowledge receipt of your recent letter inquiring as to the applicability of the recall provisions of our state Constitution and statutes to (a) the members of a school board, and (b) a school superintendent.
AGLO 1970 No. 067 >  April 24, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 067
            We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 15, 1970, regarding the taxability of wheat stored for more than one year when such wheat is covered by a commodity credit corporation loan.
AGLO 1970 No. 139 >  October 26, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 139 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question relating to RCW 87.03.435, the statutory "bid law" for irrigation districts.  Your specific question reads as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 140 >  November 2, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 140 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the opinion of this office on two questions which we paraphrase as follows:  (1) May Western Washington State College legally pay, or be authorized by the state treasurer to pay, vendor and payroll obligations chargeable to its appropriated state treasury funds from its local funds; then periodically to reimburse its local funds with a single state warrant drawn on the treasury?   (2) If question (1) is answered in the affirmative, may such payment procedures be restricted to the state's four-year colleges and universities or must the procedure be permitted for other agencies with similar local funds?
AGLO 1970 No. 141 >  November 4, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 141 This will acknowledge receipt of your letter of October 28, 1970, relating to the proposed consolidation of the cities of Camas and Washougal, Washington.
AGLO 1970 No. 142 >  November 6, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 142 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our advice as to the applicability of RCW 36.24.175 (codifying § 3, chapter 259, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.), in terms of the qualification of a particular individual for the office of county coroner in one of the counties affected by this statute, where the individual's previous ownership interest in a funeral home or mortuary has been transferred from him to his wife.
AGLO 1970 No. 143 >  November 6, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 143 This is written in further response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on two questions pertaining to the effect upon county ad valorem property taxation of the incorporation of the Ocean Shores Peninsula as a noncharter code city under chapter 35A.03 RCW.
AGLO 1970 No. 144 >  November 12, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 144 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to the authority of a county to construct, maintain and operate a sewerage system within the boundaries of a water district.
AGLO 1970 No. 068 >  April 29, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 068 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated April 22, 1970, requesting our opinion on several questions pertaining to the contents of a labor agreement between your board of county commissioners and certain elected county officials and a labor union representing various county employees.
AGLO 1970 No. 145 >  November 16, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 145 You have asked for the opinion of this office on several questions concerning the pending proposal by the Washington state board against discrimination to adopt a policy and certain recommendations regarding clubs or fraternal organizations which exclude persons from membership because of race, creed, color or national origin.  Taking into account both your letter and a subsequent telephone conversation, your questions may be paraphrased as follows:  (1) Does the Washington state board against discrimination have the power to adopt an advisory policy and recommendations regarding clubs which exclude persons from membership because of race, creed, color or national origin?   (2) If so, does the board have the power to hold a hearing on whether to adopt such a policy and recommendations?  (3) If so, is it lawful to circulate a draft of the proposed policy and recommendations in advance of the hearing?
AGLO 1970 No. 069 >  April 30, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 069 This is written in response to your request for our opinion on a question pertaining to the scope and effect of RCW 9.54.140 (codifying § 1, chapter 32, Laws of 1965).  We paraphrase your question in terms of an illustrative hypothetical factual situation, as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 070 >  April 30, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 070 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 146 >  November 16, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 146 This is written in response to your request for our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows:  Under existing state law is a school district required, in contracting with its certificated employees, to include extracurricular duties within the basic contract (RCW 28A.67.070) ‑ or may the district, with the concurrence of the employee, use a supplemental contract for this purpose (RCW 28A.67.074)?
AGLO 1970 No. 147 >  November 16, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 147 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion regarding the effect of the recent rejection of H.J.R. No. 42 upon the provisions of chapter 262, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess. (House Bill No. 582).
AGLO 1970 No. 148 >  November 17, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 148 We are in receipt of your recent letter requesting our opinion as to whether the state auditor has the power and/or the duty to audit and inspect the books of the Association of Washington Cities.
AGLO 1970 No. 149 >  November 17, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 149 This is in response to your letter of October 22, 1970, in which you inquire as to the applicability of the state sales tax (and presumably a local sales tax, if a local sales tax has been enacted in the jurisdiction involved) to purchases of food by means of food stamps.
AGLO 1970 No. 150 >  November 18, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 150 In a letter, previously acknowledged, you have requested the opinion of this office on three questions, substantially as follows:   (1) Can a volunteer fireman who was properly retired prior to effective date of chapter 118, Laws of 1969, but who was not yet drawing a retirement pension because of age, now elect to begin drawing a reduced pension at age 60 or age 62 if such age is attained after effective date of chapter 118, Laws of 1969?   (2) If the answer to question (1) is affirmative, can the retired volunteer fireman receive benefits from date of his eligibility or only from date he notifies the state of his election?   (3) Can a volunteer fireman, eligible to receive the maximum retirement pension payable, delay retirement for a year or more and then claim and receive benefits from the date of his eligibility when he does retire from active service?
AGLO 1970 No. 151 >  December 2, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 151 By letter previously acknowledged you requested an opinion of this office on certain questions pertaining to the availability of emergency ambulance services in this state, as follows:   "1. Do statutes relating to cities and counties give these jurisdictions authority to guarantee the availabiliility [[availability]]of emergency ambulance service within their jurisdictions?  "2. May the State Board of Health require cities and counties to meet the provisions of Standard 11, Emergency Medical Services, of the Federal Highway Safety Bureau, as outlined above?"
AGLO 1970 No. 152 >  December 2, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 152 This is written in response to your recent letter informing us that your county commissioners have asked for your advice on the following question:
AGLO 1970 No. 153 >  December 4, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 153 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to whether there is any legal prohibition, statutory or otherwise, against the same person simultaneously serving as the police judge for a fourth class city and as a Democratic precinct committeeman.
AGLO 1970 No. 154 >  December 4, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 154 This is written in response to your request for an opinion of this office on a question relating to the duties and responsibilities of the various county, city or district law enforcement and fire fighting agencies to provide police and fire protection during civil disturbances occurring on state‑owned premises, e.g., one of our state college or university campuses.  Specifically, you have asked whether any legal distinction is to be drawn, in terms of the extent of those duties, between civil disturbances occurring on such state‑owned premises and those occurring elsewhere within the territorial jurisdiction of the particular local government.
AGLO 1970 No. 155 >  December 8, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 155 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question pertaining to the eligibility for licensing of certain institutions under the provisions of a proposed bill relating to installment loans.  Your question regarding this bill reads as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 156 >  December 9, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 156 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated November 24, 1970, requesting an opinion of this office on the following question:
AGLO 1970 No. 157 >  December 9, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 157 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our advice as to whether a hospital operated by a public hospital district, under the provisions of chapter 70.44 RCW, is required by virtue of its "public" status to permit its facilities to be used for the performance of abortions under the provisions of chapter 3, Laws of 1970, Ex. Sess. (Referendum No. 20).
AGLO 1970 No. 158 >  December 15, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 158 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question:  "Does the Department of Labor and Industries have the statutory authority under Chapter 41.56 of the Revised Code of Washington entitled Public Employees Collective Bargaining Act to promulgate rules defining and excluding 'supervisors' from bargaining units containing other employees?"
AGLO 1970 No. 159 >  December 16, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 159 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows:  Where, in the case of a third class city, no newspaper is published within such city (although newspapers published in adjacent or neighboring cities are of general circulation therein), how are the proposed ordinances of such city to be published?
AGLO 1970 No. 160 >  December 21, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 160 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office concerning the status of an organization known as the Washington Association of Community College Student Governments.  We have paraphrased your question as follows:
AGLO 1970 No. 161 >  December 30, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 161 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following two questions:   "(1) Can the County Commissioners hire a private citizen who does not hold a law enforcement commission from the County Sheriff or otherwise to police county roads with regard to weight and measures?  "(2) Assuming the commissioners could hire the man, could this man be given any powers of arrest other than the power of a citizen's arrest which all citizens possess in common?"
AGLO 1970 No. 162 >  December 30, 1970
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1970 No. 162 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on several questions pertaining to the scope of RCW 29.82.220, relating to corrupt practices in connection with recall campaigns in this state.  We paraphrase your questions as follows:   (1) Does RCW 29.82.220 make it a crime to advertise in favor of or against signing a recall petition?  (2) Does RCW 29.82.220 make it a crime to advertise in favor of or against voting for the recall of a public official?  (3) Does RCW 29.82.220 make it a crime to offer a reward or make a threat of harm in connection with signing or not signing a recall petition or voting for or against a recall?
AGLO 1973 No. 115 >  July 19, 1973
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1973 No.115 By recent letter you have asked whether, in our judgment, a constitutional amendment is needed in order to permit county agencies, without the approval of their respective county prosecuting attorneys, to retain other attorneys to counsel and represent them with respect to civil matters.
AGLO 1973 No. 116 >  October 29, 1973
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1973 No. 116 We are in receipt of your letter dated October 26, 1973, requesting our views with respect to certain questions pertaining to the temporary service of the same person as county prosecuting attorney and as acting county sheriff in a fourth through ninth class county.
AGLO 1971 No. 001 >  January 5, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 001 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting that we review and comment upon your tentative responses to certain questions relating to a student dress policy covering students attending schools in the Pasco School District, which have been submitted to your office by the superintendent of that district.  This policy statement, entitled "Good Grooming Policy," reads as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 002 >  January 7, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 002 By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we have divided and paraphrased as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 003 >  January 7, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 003 We acknowledge receipt of your recent letter requesting our opinion as to the ability of the incumbent justice of the peace for Columbia county to continue in office after having attained the age of 75, in view of the provisions of § 1, chapter 6, Laws of 1969, Ex. Sess.
AGLO 1971 No. 004 >  January 13, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 004 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our advice regarding the financial obligations of Pend Oreille county and the intermediate school district in which it is located ‑ arising out of the recent retirement, in June of 1970, of the county superintendent of schools of Pend Oreille county.
AGLO 1971 No. 005 >  January 14, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 005 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 11, 1971, requesting our advice regarding the present status of the law pertaining to the availability to the news media of the names of persons involved in criminal prosecutions for the crimes of incest or sodomy.
AGLO 1971 No. 006 >  January 15, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 006 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested our opinion regarding the legality of a pending proposal by the governor and the secretary of social and health services to close down, and terminate the operation of, a certain facility in Kitsap county known as the Olympic Center.  Your question, specifically, is whether, in view of the provisions of chapter 11, Laws of 1965, this facility may be closed down by administrative action without specific legislative authorization.
AGLO 1971 No. 007 >  January 15, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 007 Is there any legal requirement of publication or posting of a notice of hearing before the holding of "public hearings" which are required by RCW 36.81.121 prior to the adoption, annual revision or other revision of the six-year comprehensive road program?
AGLO 1971 No. 008 >  January 19, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 008 In our telephone conversation, followed by your letter dated January 6, 1971, you have asked for our views on the following questions:
AGLO 1971 No. 009 >  January 22, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 009 "(1) If a public utility district commission by resolution appoints and hires an auditor, . . . is that auditor the employee of the board of district commissioners, or is the auditor and are the auditor's functions, subject to the supervision and control of the manager?
AGLO 1971 No. 010 >  January 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 010 By letter previously acknowledged your predecessor in office requested our opinion as to whether a deferred sentence can be granted upon a second conviction for drunk driving in view of the provisions of RCW 46.61.515.1/  Thereafter, upon your assumption of office, we wrote to you inquiring as to whether you were desirous of receiving our opinion on this question.  By letter dated January 21, 1971, your responded in the affirmative.
AGLO 1971 No. 011 >  January 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 011

 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion regarding the appointment of probation officers to supervise persons placed upon probation by a district justice court.

AGLO 1971 No. 012 >  January 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 012 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 22, 1971, requesting our review and critique of your recent opinion to the Chelan county coroner and auditor regarding the coroner's eligibility to continue in office under RCW 36.16.020.
AGLO 1971 No. 013 >  January 27, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 013 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on two questions pertaining to the interim committee on banking, insurance and transportation which was established during the first extraordinary session of the 1969 legislature through its adoption of Senate Concurrent Resolution No. 33.
AGLO 1971 No. 014 >  January 28, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 014 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 26, 1971, requesting our advice as to the legal significance of previous periods of municipal civil service employment with respect to the status of an individual within the civil service system for deputy sheriffs in a particular county.
AGLO 1971 No. 015 >  February 1, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 015 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to the constitutionality of a certain proposed bill which (in addition to enclosing a copy) you have briefly described as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 016 >  February 2, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 016 By letter dated February 1, 1971, you have requested an opinion of this office on the following question:
 
            Does Senate Bill 160 violate the "one man one vote" concept?
 
            We answer this question in the negative for the reasons set forth below.
AGLO 1971 No. 017 >  February 5, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 017 Does chapter 42.23 RCW prohibit a member of a board of fire commissioners of the fire protection district from legally serving as a fire commissioner, if the firm by which he is employed does business with the fire district, and the average monthly expenditure to the firm is $300 per month?
AGLO 1971 No. 018 >  February 5, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 018 "Your opinion is requested as to whether and to what extent any current state law on the subject matter embraced by Title II of the Comprehensive Drug Abuse and Prevention Control Act of 1970 is in 'positive conflict' with any provision of that title so that the two cannot consistently stand together, within the meaning of Section 708 of such act."
AGLO 1971 No. 019 >  February 8, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 019 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to the constitutionality of a certain bill authorizing the payment of bonuses to veterans of the current conflict in Vietnam.
AGLO 1971 No. 020 >  February 8, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 020 This is written in response to your recent request for our advice as to whether Senate Bill No. 375, if enacted in its present form, would violate the provisions of Article II, § 19 of our state Constitution.
AGLO 1971 No. 021 >  February 8, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 021 This is written in response to your letter dated February 4, 1971, requesting clarification of a certain aspect of AGO 1970 No. 26 [[to Prosecuting Attorney, Kitsap County on November 30, 1970]], which was written to your predecessor on November 30, 1970.
AGLO 1971 No. 022 >  February 8, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 022 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question:
 
            "Would a man who operates a charter boat which comes under Coast Guard regulations and clearance, be barred from serving as a member of the Governor's Advisory to the Fishing Commission?"
AGLO 1971 No. 023 >  February 8, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 023 You have requested our advice upon certain questions which we paraphrase as follows:
 
            Is the Urban Arterial Board required to hold public hearings upon proposed urban arterial projects and if so, does chapter 34.04 RCW (the Administrative Procedure Act) require the Board to accept testimony from an individual at such a hearing?
AGLO 1972 No. 052 >  June 5, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 052 By letter, you have requested our opinion of a question which we paraphrase as follows:  Is the chief of a county fire protection district eligible for coverage under chapter 41.26 RCW, if he is the sole fire chief, has no other employment, and has no specified work hours‑-if he devotes the full amount of time that is required by his employer to the duties of a fire chief?
AGLO 1972 No. 051 >  July 3, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 051 We are in receipt of your letter dated June 16, 1972, requesting our opinion with regard to the authority of the department of social and health services to refuse to disclose certain information.
AGLO 1972 No. 053 >  July 6, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 053 By letter previously acknowledged, you have requested an opinion of this office upon two questions which we paraphrase as follows:  (1) May a single county unilaterally withdraw from an intercounty rural library district such as the Timberland Regional Library District?   (2) Must a petition for dissolution of an intercounty rural library district be submitted by ten percent of the qualified voters of each and every county included within the library district?
AGLO 1972 No. 054 >  July 12, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 054 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion with regard to the meaning of the phrase "preceding calendar year" as used in RCW 84.36.370 (4), relating to property tax exemptions for certain senior citizens, and providing that:  "The amount that the person shall be exempt from an obligation to pay shall be calculated, on the basis of the combined income, from all sources whatsoever, of the person claiming the exemption and his or her spouse for the preceding calendar year, in accordance with the following schedule:  . . ."  (Emphasis supplied)
 
AGLO 1972 No. 055 >  July 12, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 055 We are in receipt of your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question relating to the current status of a certain member of the board of commissioners of a water district in Whatcom county.   On its face, your question is whether the purported resignation of a public officer, in order to be effective, must be accepted by the authority to which it is submitted.  You have cited the decision of the Washington supreme court in State ex rel. Royse v. Superior Court, 46 Wash. 616, 91 Pac. 4 (1907), as bearing upon this question ‑ and we agree.
AGLO 1972 No. 056 >  July 28, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 056 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following questions relative to a county's power to codify its ordinances:   "1. Does a [noncharter] county have the authority to codify its ordinances as an official code of the county?   "2. If so, are copies of such codes in published form adequate evidence, without further proof, of the underlying ordinances?"
AGLO 1972 No. 057 >  July 28, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 057 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question:  "May the board of directors of a second class school district sell and convey real property which is no longer needed for school district purposes and which has a value of in excess of $35,000 upon a privately negotiated sale without submitting the question of the sale thereof to a vote of the voters of the district?"
AGLO 1972 No. 058 >  July 31, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 058 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion with regard to the right of members of the public to inspect certain records relating to real property valuation which are maintained in a county assessor's office.
AGLO 1972 No. 059 >  August 4, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 059 This is written in response to your letter dated June 12, 1972, requesting our opinion on the following two questions:   "1. Does the 18th Amendment prohibit the deposit in the Motor Vehicle Fund of those revenues which by statute are currently deposited in the Highway Safety Fund created by RCW 46.68.060?   "2. Do the uses of Highway Safety Fund Revenues identified in RCW 46.68.060 qualify as 'highway purposes' under the 18th Amendment?
AGLO 1972 No. 060 >  August 4, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 060 By two letters previously acknowledged you have requested our opinion on several questions relating to county "home rule charter" elections under the provisions of Article XI, § 4 (Amendment 21) of our state Constitution.  We paraphrase your questions as follows:   (1) In view of the requirement contained in Article XI, § 4 (Amendment 21) that a proposal to elect a board of freeholders to frame a county charter is to be voted upon at a general election, should otherwise properly filed petitions for the election of such persons be deemed fatally defective because they call for the question be put to the voters at a primary election preceding the next general election?  (2) Where only one legal newspaper is printed in a given county, will the requirement of Article XI, § 4 (Amendment 21) that a proposed county charter be published ". . . in two (2) legal newspapers published in said county, . . ." be complied with by publication of said charter in that newspaper and in some other legal newspaper which is circulated but not printed in the county?   (3) Must a person, in order to be elected to the office of freeholder under the provisions of Article XI, § 4 (Amendment 21) be an owner of property situated within the county wherein he seeks election?
AGLO 1972 No. 061 >  August 9, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 061 We are writing in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows:  Are the meetings of the state advisory committee to the Department of Social and Health Services, as provided for in Sections 13, 14, and 15, of Chapter 189, Laws of 1971 Extraordinary Session, subject to the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act of 1971 (Chapter 250, Laws of 1971 Extraordinary Session)?
AGLO 1972 No. 062 >  August 14, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 062 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on two questions relating to the imposition of business license taxes by cities and towns.  We paraphrase these questions as follows:  (1) May a city or town for purposes of revenue impose a license tax upon business activities which are classified according to the amount of gross income so that each class encompasses all businesses whose gross incomes range between a certain minimum and maximum amount, with each class paying a different flat rate of tax?  (2) In view of §§ 6 and 7, chapter 134, Laws of 1972, 2nd Ex. Sess., may a city or town for purposes of revenue impose a single rate business license tax measured by gross income upon the activity of making retail sales of tangible personal property, but specify a dollar ceiling of gross income above which the tax would not apply?
AGLO 1972 No. 063 >  August 17, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 063 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on three questions relating to workmen's compensation coverage under the state industrial insurance act for employees of the city of Tacoma.  Your questions read as follows:   "1. Are the City of Tacoma General Government and the City of Tacoma Utilities Board or Department of Public Utilities one legal entity under the provisions of RCW 51.08.070, which defines an employer under the Workmen's Compensation Act?  "2. If the General Government and Public Utilities are one employer under the purview of the Act, may the City of Tacoma self insure as to its General Government section and leave the Public Utilities in the State Workmen's Compensation Fund?  "3. Is an employer who self insures under the provisions of RCW 51.16.140 required to pay 100% of the medical aid assessment? Or may he pay 50% of the assessment and deduct the other 50% from his employees' earnings?"
AGLO 1972 No. 064 >  August 18, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 064 By recent letter you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:  Does RCW 28A.58.135, the competitive bidding requirement which is found in the RCW chapter containing provisions applicable to all school districts, apply to intermediate school districts?
AGLO 1972 No. 065 >  August 21, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 065 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion with regard to the obligation of a county coroner to disclose to the press or public certain information obtained by him in the investigation of a fatality resulting from a traffic accident.
AGLO 1972 No. 066 >  August 22, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 066 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the opinion of this office regarding the eligibility of the "Expanded Swinomish Indian Fish Company Project" for a grant of state funds under the provisions of the economic assistance authority act of 1972 ‑ chapter 117, Laws of 1972, 1st Ex. Sess.
AGLO 1972 No. 067 >  August 23, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 067 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion with regard to the authority of a county auditor to place a certain bond proposition of the city of Tacoma upon the September 19, 1972, election ballot where the request to the city council to place this matter before the people is submitted to the auditor less than forty-five days prior to that date.
AGLO 1972 No. 068 >  September 1, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 068 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:   Are the provisions of chapter 18.43 RCW establishing registration and licensing requirements for engineers and land surveyors applicable to the usual teaching and related activities performed by a professor or dean of engineering at a college or university offering courses leading to an academic degree in engineering?
AGLO 1972 No. 069 >  September 5, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 069 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested the opinion of this office on the following question:  "Does Washington law preclude or limit the enforcement in Washington of a foreign loan made to a person who is not at the time a Washington resident, where the loan is in excess of $1,000, where it exceeds the interest rates prescribed under Washington's usury and small loan laws, and where it is a valid, enforceable loan under the laws of the foreign jurisdiction?"
AGLO 1972 No. 070 >  September 7, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 070 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting an opinion of this office as to whether the words "owner or owners" as used in RCW 58.17.165 (relating to plats and subdivisions) include contract vendors, mortgagees and lien holders.
AGLO 1972 No. 071 >  September 7, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 071 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question:   "In your opinion, are the provisions of RCW 29.79.490 (6) applicable to a Washington corporation with its principal office in this state, if the sole stockholder of the corporation is another corporation having its principal place of business here, and qualified to do business here, but organized in a state other than Washington and with a majority of its stockholders residents of states other than Washington?"
AGLO 1972 No. 072 >  September 8, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 072 By recent letter you made reference to the establishment of a board of review under the provisions of RCW 47.52.150 ". . . to resolve the pending dispute between the City of Seattle and the Washington State Highway Department as to the precise manner in which Interstate Highway No. 90 will terminate within the confines of the City of Seattle.  . . ."  You then stated that this board is desirous of obtaining our opinion ". . . as to the applicability [to its proceedings] of the Open Public Meeting Act of 1971 to the Board of Review."  By way of a refinement of this request you concluded by indicating that:
AGLO 1972 No. 073 >  September 11, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 073 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on certain questions regarding the use of powers of attorney in connection with applications for Viet Nam veterans' bonuses under chapter 154, Laws of 1972, 1st Ex. Sess.  We have paraphrased your questions as follows:   (1) May a person holding a general or appropriately special power of attorney executed by a person qualified for a bonus under chapter 154, supra, make application for and receive such a bonus "on behalf of this person"?  (2) Assuming an affirmative answer to question (1), is that answer applicable in a case where the person who has executed the power of attorney is known to be a prisoner of war or missing in action?
AGLO 1972 No. 074 >  September 15, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 074 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion with regard to the legality of payment of the salary of Whatcom County Superior Court Judge Hobart S. Dawson, who is currently serving in that capacity pursuant to an appointment made by the governor in accordance with the following provision of Article IV, § 5 of the state Constitution:   ". . .  If a vacancy occurs in the office of judge of the superior court, the governor shall appoint a person to hold the office until the election and qualification of a judge to fill the vacancy, which election shall be at the next succeeding general election, and the judge so elected shall hold office for the remainder of the unexpired term."
AGLO 1972 No. 075 >  October 3, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 075 By letter previously acknowledged, you requested the opinion of this office on questions we paraphrase as follows:   1.         What procedures must be followed before a ninth to twelfth grade student may transfer to a public school not situated in the district in which he resides, when grades nine through twelve are offered in the district in which the student resides, and when the transfer is not pursuant to a special program?  2.         If a ninth to twelfth grade student is allowed to transfer from his resident district to another school district when his own school district offers grades nine through twelve and when the transfer is not pursuant to a special program, must the transferring student pay tuition to the school district he attends and, if so, how much?  We conclude that under the conditions stated in the first question a student may transfer school districts but only if the boards of directors of the school district in which the student resides and of the district to which the student wishes to transfer mutually agree to the transfer and further agree that the transferring student will best be accommodated in the receiving district.  In answer to the second question we conclude that unless the board of directors of the resident school district and the receiving school district make arrangements in lieu of tuition which are approved by the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, the transferring student must pay to the receiving school district a reasonable tuition charge as set by the state superintendent.
AGLO 1972 No. 076 >  October 19, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 076 We are in receipt of your letter dated October 17, 1972, requesting our advice with regard to the scope of RCW 41.14.190.
AGLO 1972 No. 077 >  October 24, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 077 This is in response to your request for legal assistance from this office on the four questions which we have paraphrased as follows:  1. Are fringe benefits which constitute a part of the compensation of county commissioners, such as insurance and similar benefits, payable in whole or in part from county road funds?  2. Is it lawful for a county under chapter 25, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess., to use any part of its road fund millage for the purpose of paying the salaries and/or fringe benefits of its county commissioners?  3. May the expenses of county commissioners, such as automobiles, convention expenses, travel, and other types of expenses, be payable from the county road fund?  4. Are such expenses, or any of them, payable from the millage diverted from the county road fund pursuant to chapter 25, Laws of 1971, 1st Ex. Sess.
AGLO 1972 No. 078 >  November 9, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 078 This is written in response to your request for our advice regarding the proper salaries to be paid to the various justices or judges of the supreme, appellate, superior and district justice courts of the state of Washington for the period commencing November 14, 1972.
AGLO 1972 No. 079 >  November 10, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 079 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion with regard to the constitutionality of a single rate state income tax.  Because no specific bill designed to impose such a tax has been included with your request, our response will, of necessity, have to be somewhat abstract and generalized.
AGLO 1972 No. 080 >  November 17, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 080 This is written in further response to your recent letter requesting our opinion regarding the authority of a school district to rent or lease certain school buildings to a nongovernmental group providing social services to the adjacent community.
AGLO 1972 No. 081 >  November 22, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 081 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on two questions pertaining to the constitutional amendment contained in S.J.R. No. 38, as approved by the voters at the recent, November 7, 1972, state general election.  We paraphrase your questions as follows:   (1) Is the constitutional amendment contained in S.J.R. No. 38 a self-executing grant of power to the legislative authorities of the various counties to prescribe their own salaries and the salaries of other county officers?   (2) Assuming a negative answer to question (1), does S.J.R. No. 38 permit the state legislature to delegate to the legislative authorities of the various counties the right to prescribe the salaries of those county officers who, by law, exercise the powers and perform the duties of two or more county offices; e.g., a prosecuting attorney-coroner in counties of the fourth class and below?
AGLO 1972 No. 082 >  November 29, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 082 By letter previously acknowledged you requested an opinion from this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:   Does an agency head have the authority under RCW 42.18.270 to allow a former state employee, as defined in RCW 42.18.130, to appear before his agency within two years of such employee's separation from that agency?
AGLO 1972 No. 083 >  November 30, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 083 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on the question of whether any portion of the revenues (fees, fines, forfeitures and penalties) assessed and collected by a justice court located in a county not operating under the 1969 justice court act, as amended (chapter 299, Laws of 1961) may be used to defray the costs of operation of such courts in the manner set forth in RCW 3.62.050.
AGLO 1972 No. 084 >  November 30, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 084 This is written in response to your recent letter concerning the payment of per diem and expenses to newly elected members of the state senate.  With regard to these individuals you have advised us as follows:  "Newly-elected members to the Senate have been called upon to attend organizational meetings, and for the first time have been appointed to both the Committee on Committees and Senate Employment Committee.  They will be called upon to attend frequent meetings before they are sworn into office next January."
AGLO 1972 No. 085 >  November 30, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 085 This is written in response to your request for our opinion with respect to the eligibility of various local governmental elected officials to serve as members of a board of freeholders convened under Article XI, § 4 (Amendment 21) of the state Constitution to prepare and propose a county "home rule" charter.  You have specifically identified the following local officials as being within the ambit of your question:   ". . . mayors and councilmen of cities, county commissioners, port district commissioners, and commissioners of sewer, water and fire districts."
AGLO 1972 No. 086 >  December 8, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 086 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to whether  ". . . RCW 84.36.020 is restricted in application to cemeteries owned and operated by a nonprofit corporation or whether it applies to all cemetery corporations complying with the nondiscrimination requirement of the section."    You have indicated as the basis for your request ". . . that counties are interpreting the provisions of RCW 84.36.020 in inconsistent manners.  . . ."  We wonder, however, whether the explanation for this may not be the relationship between RCW 84.36.020 and another statute dealing, specifically, with nonprofit cemeteries ‑ rather than any differing interpretations of RCW 84.36.020, itself.
AGLO 1972 No. 087 >  December 8, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 087 You have asked for the advice of this office on two questions regarding payment of certain benefits under the Viet Nam veterans' bonus act (chapter 154, Laws of 1972, Ex. Sess.).  We have paraphrased your questions as follows:   (1) Does § 12, chapter 154, supra, which provides for payment of the sum of $250 "to aid in defraying funeral and other burial costs" of qualified veterans who have died, contemplate the payment of a separate award in addition to the "survivorship" benefit provided for in § 2 (3) of chapter 154?   (2) If question one is answered affirmatively, under what circumstances may this additional benefit be paid?
AGLO 1971 No. 024 >  February 10, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 024 On January 26, 1971, we wrote you a comprehensive attorney general's opinion regarding the procedures which are available to the legislature in responding to an initiative which has been submitted to it under the provisions of Article II, § 1 (Amendment 7) of our state Constitution.  Among the alternatives which were discussed at some length in this opinion was that of either rejecting or taking no action upon the initiative but enacting, in lieu thereof, an alternative proposal covering the same subject.  We indicated that if such a "substitute" measure were enacted it would have to go on the next regular election ballot along with the rejected initiative itself ‑ at which time both measures would be voted upon in accordance with the following constitutionally prescribed procedures:
AGLO 1971 No. 025 >  February 16, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 025 By letter dated February 9, 1971, you requested the advice of this office on a question pertaining to the authority of a public employer covered by chapter 41.56 RCW (the public employees' collective bargaining act) to make retroactive salary adjustments to employees based upon a provision in the applicable collective bargaining agreement covering such employees which provides for such adjustments.
AGLO 1972 No. 089 >  December 15, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 089 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on the following question:  "Is an appointed member of a boundary review board a county officer as contemplated by RCW 84.64.080 relating to persons prohibited to purchase at tax foreclosure sales?"
AGLO 1971 No. 026 >  February 17, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 026 By letter previously acknowledged you requested an opinion of this office on the constitutionality of House Bill No. 76, currently pending before the legislature, in so far as this bill would impose the following mandatory filing requirements upon land surveyors in this state:
AGLO 1971 No. 027 >  February 18, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 027 You have requested our opinion on the following questions relating to industrial insurance coverage for state employees:
AGLO 1971 No. 028 >  February 19, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 028 By letter dated February 15, 1971, you submitted to this office the following opinion request:
 
            "Request is hereby made for an opinion as to whether or not the Sergeant-of-Arms of the House of Representatives and other security personnel are immune from Civil Suit for actions done within the scope of employment.  Specifically:  Are they covered by RCW 4.92.060, 4.92.070 wherein the Attorney General shall appear and defend under certain circumstances?"
AGLO 1971 No. 029 >  February 23, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 029 This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated February 20, 1971, requesting our opinion as to whether a certain "stick game" commonly played by members of a certain Indian tribe would violate the provisions of our state Constitution and statutes prohibiting lotteries.
AGLO 1972 No. 088 >  December 14, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 088 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion regarding the applicability of the cumulative voting provisions of RCW 23A.08.300 to a state bank or trust company which is subject to the provisions of RCW 30.12.010.  As you have noted, RCW 30.12.010, in dealing with meetings of the stockholders of a bank or trust company which is subject to this statute, provides that:
AGLO 1971 No. 030 >  February 24, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 030 By letter dated February 19, 1971, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, you requested our opinion as to whether RCW 77.12.150
 
            ". . . conflicts with the anti-gambling statutes of this state and particularly the anti-lottery statutes, Chapter 9.59 RCW."
AGLO 1972 No. 090 >  December 18, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 090 "It has come to my attention that a question exists relating to the salary level for newly appointed or elected judges of the state.  Would you please issue an opinion advising this office as paymaster for the Court of Appeals and one‑half of the Superior Court judges' salaries, whether or not such newly elected or appointed judges are entitled to the statutory amount set by the 1972 session of the legislature, or whether they should be paid at the same level as judges presently serving the courts of the state of Washington."
AGLO 1971 No. 031 >  February 25, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 031 This is in response to your request for an opinion on the definition of "major surgery," both in the context of chapter 18.36 RCW, drugless therapeutics, which presently regulates the activities of naturopaths, and of House Bill 603.
AGLO 1972 No. 091 >  December 15, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 091 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on several questions pertaining to the potential tort liability of the officers and employees of an irrigation district, together with the authority of such a district to indemnify these personnel, either directly or through the purchase of liability insurance, against the possibility of such liability.
AGLO 1971 No. 032 >  February 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 032 "1. Is the applicable portion of the Generation Tax against Public Utility districts, imposed by RCW 54.28.020, and distributed by the State to the Counties, pursuant to RCW 54.28.050, to be distributed pursuant to RCW 54.28.090, by the Counties (1) to all school districts lying in the County and within the boundaries of the Public Utility District, (2) to the school districts lying within the County and having any Public Utility district property within their boundaries, or, (3) to the school districts lying within the County and having property acquired by the Public Utility District from within their boundaries for generating facilities and land acquired for reservoir purposes?
AGLO 1971 No. 033 >  March 1, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 033 By recent letter you have requested the opinion of this office on several questions relating to the funding of the state auditor's division of municipal corporations.  By way of background, you have indicated in your letter that the proposed state budget for the 1971-1973 fiscal biennium, as submitted to the legislature under chapter 43.88 RCW, includes a proposal to delete all financial support for the division of municipal corporations from either the state general fund or the motor vehicle fund, representing a departure from administrative and legislative practice over a period of several biennia.  We are further informed that a question was raised at a committee hearing on the proposed budget as to the validity of that proposal, and that certain members of the committee, as well as your office, desired to obtain the attorney general's opinion on the matter.
AGLO 1971 No. 034 >  March 3, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 034 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on the constitutionality of House Bill No. 419, in the light of certain provisions of our state and federal constitutions relating to, or otherwise inhibiting, the use of public funds in aid of private educational institutions.
AGLO 1972 No. 092 >  December 18, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 092 This is in answer to your letter previously acknowledged requesting our opinion on certain questions which we paraphrase as follows:   (1) When a county elects under RCW 77.12.201 to relinquish to the state all fines and bail forfeitures collected for game law violations and instead to receive payments in lieu of taxes on game lands located therein ‑   (a) Do the provisions of chapter 3.62 RCW apply so as to cause a portion of such fines and forfeitures nevertheless to remain with the county to pay the expenses of its district justice court?  (b) Are such payments in lieu of taxes to be made on any buildings or facilities not situated on game lands?  (c) Are such payments in lieu of taxes to be made on buildings or facilities situated on public fishing areas of less than 100 acres in size?   (2) In determining whether a public fishing area is less than 100 acres in size, so as to be excluded from payments in lieu of taxes under RCW 77.12.203, are water areas adjacent to a designated launching area to be included?
AGLO 1971 No. 035 >  March 3, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 035 "I am advised that the Department of Social and Health Services is planning to adopt certain program changes which concern medical care for the "medical needy" not on continuing grants under Title XIX of the Social Security Act, and for the "medical only" participants who receive only State monies.  These changes are set forth as the following assumptions upon which I base three questions.
AGLO 1971 No. 036 >  March 9, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 036 By recent letter you have requested our opinion on two questions which you anticipate will arise out of adjournment sine die of the regular session of the 42nd legislature and the convening of a special session.  Your questions are as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 037 >  March 9, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 037 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion regarding the applicability of Senate Bill No. 445 to the employees of an irrigation district.
AGLO 1971 No. 038 >  March 11, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 038 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a question regarding a proposed amendment to Senate Bill No. 170, relating to the regulation of hotels and motels by the state department of social and health services.1/  The amendment to which you have referred would call for the state board of health2/to
AGLO 1971 No. 039 >  March 12, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 039 By recent letter you have requested our opinion concerning the constitutionality of sections 100 and 101 of Senate Bill 701, pertaining to workmen's compensation, insofar as they propose to shift the funding of increases for prior pensioners from the general fund to a supplemental pension fund supported by contributions from employers and workmen.  We have examined the provisions in question and believe they would be constitutionally defensible if subjected to court challenge upon enactment.
AGLO 1971 No. 040 >  March 15, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 040 This is written in response to your recent letter, previously acknowledged, requesting an opinion of this office on several questions regarding the proper distribution to be made of uncollected Grays Harbor County road district property tax revenues in view of the incorporation, on November 23, 1970, of Ocean Shores as a noncharter code city.  Under the factual circumstances giving rise to your request, we believe that your inquiry may be properly subdivided and paraphrased as follows:
AGLO 1972 No. 093 >  December 18, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 093 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested our opinion on several questions pertaining to the computation of "general state revenues" under the provisions of the recently adopted constitutional amendment contained in H.J.R. No. 52.  In essence, you have asked whether this term includes or excludes monies derived from each of the following revenue sources:   (1) Such revenues of the state liquor control board as are distributable to the state general fund under RCW 66.08.190;  (2) Property taxes collected by the state for the support of local school districts under the two mill school levy provided for in RCW 84.52.050;  (3) Public utility district privilege tax revenues collected by the state under RCW 54.28.020;  (4) Revenues payable into each of some fifty-six "dedicated" accounts within the state general fund; and  (5) Monies paid into state bond redemption funds.
AGLO 1972 No. 094 >  December 26, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 094 By letter previously acknowledged you have requested an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:  Does RCW 84.34.210 empower counties, cities, towns and metropolitan municipal corporations to accept by gift from the lessee‑operator of a privately owned airport such lessee's development rights in runways, clear zones, and adjacent buffer areas situated on the leased premises, assuming that the land in question is definable as "open space land" under RCW 84.34.020, but is not presently classified and taxed as such?
AGLO 1972 No. 095 >  December 27, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinionn 1972 No. 095 This is written in response to your request for our opinion on a question regarding the status of "holdover" state senators under the legislative redistricting order in Prince v. Kramer, et al., which was entered by the United States District Court, W.D., Wash., on April 21, 1972, and affirmed by the Supreme Court on October 10, 1972.
AGLO 1972 No. 096 >  June 12, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 096 We are in receipt of your letter dated June 1, 1972, in which you have posed the following request:   "Will you please furnish me an opinion as to the constitutionality of an ordinance now on the books of Camas, Washington prohibiting signs being placed on private property even with the owner's consent."  Although you have not supplied us with a copy of the city ordinance in question, we surmise that your request has reference to chapter 9.04 of the codified ordinances of the city of Camas, copy attached.  As you will note from a review of this chapter its basic thrust is to establish a permit system for any "poster panel" except those the total display area of which does not exceed five square feet.
AGLO 1972 No. 097 >  November 28, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 097 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on two questions relative to the Federal Hatch Act, which regulates political activities by federal employees and those of state or local governmental units which are funded, in whole or in part, with federal moneys.
AGLO 1971 No. 041 >  March 15, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 041 This is written in response to your letter dated March 11, 1971, requesting our advice in regard to a certain matter which is described in a letter written to you on February 2, 1971, by the chief of the fire department of King County Fire District No. 32 ‑ a copy of which you have enclosed.
AGLO 1972 No. 098 >  January 20, 1972
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1972 No. 098 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated January 13, 1972, requesting our opinion regarding the use of school district funds ". . . for either advertising or the hiring of firms to promote school millage."
AGLO 1971 No. 042 >  March 15, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 042 By letter dated March 5, 1971, you requested an opinion of this office concerning the legality of the Washington State School Directors' Association entering into a contract with a consultant relative to excess levies by local school districts.
AGLO 1971 No. 043 >  March 16, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 043 "On the first day of each month the county treasurer shall distribute pro rata, according to the rate of levy for each fund, the amount collected as consolidated tax during the preceding month, and shall certify the same to the county auditor.  . . ."
AGLO 1971 No. 044 >  March 17, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 044 Your first question is whether the term "wage" as defined in RCW 49.46.010 (2), would include ". . . all benefits accruing as a result of a labor contract or an employment contract."  We would think not, for the reason that this statutory definition is limited to those forms of compensation for employment services which are ". . . payable in legal tender or equivalent."  See, State ex rel. Hagan v. Chinook Hotel, 65 Wn.2d 573, 578, 399 P.2d 8 (1965).  The statutory definition which was thus construed reads, itself, as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 045 >  March 18, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 045 We acknowledge receipt of your letter dated March 5, 1971, requesting our opinion with respect to the proper person to be serving as legal counsel to Intermediate School District No. 103.
AGLO 1971 No. 046 >  March 19, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 046 The United States Department of Labor has requested that you obtain a clarifying opinion from this office on the legal effect of the language of Chapter 1, Laws of 1971, specifically sections 2 and 8, which provide for retrospective operation of the conformity provisions of that law.  The question arises because section 11 of that act declares an effective date which has been determined to be January 17, 1971.
AGLO 1971 No. 047 >  March 22, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 047 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion as to the amount of salary payable to the court reporter for the judicial district comprising Kitsap county.
 
            As you have correctly pointed out, the salaries of court reporters are governed by RCW 2.32.210, which provides, in material part, as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 048 >  March 22, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 048 This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion with regard to the constitutionality of a proposal to place the following section in the 1971-73 omnibus appropriations bill:
AGLO 1971 No. 049 >  March 23, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 049 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion on a number of questions involving the constitutionality of a student loan program such as would be provided for by Senate Bill No. 840.  Your questions are as follows:
AGLO 1971 No. 050 >  March 23, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 050 Where a law enforcement officer or fire fighter who is a member of the Washington law enforcement officers' and fire fighters' retirement system is injured in the performance of his duties in consequence of tortious conduct on the part of the county, city or district by which he is employed, including its officials or employees, does the fact that his disability is also compensable under the provisions of chapter 41.26 RCW, governing the aforesaid retirement system, constitute a defense to liability on the part of the employer?
AGLO 1971 No. 051 >  March 24, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 051 "At the opening of a branch of the First American National Bank of Port Townsend, citizens of the area were invited to attend the ceremonies, and connected with the general invitation, the following language was printed in the local newspaper:
AGLO 1971 No. 052 >  March 26, 1971
LETTER OPINION
Letter Opinion 1971 No. 052 This is written in response to your recent letter requesting our opinion regarding the legal status of a certain organization, known as the "Black Student Union," which you report to have been formed by Negro students attending Davis High School in Yakima.
Content Bottom Graphic
AGO Logo