Other Languages0This 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").
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.
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).
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."
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?"
This is written in response to your recent request for our opinion on a question which we paraphrase as follows:
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?"
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.
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?
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.