Other LanguagesThis 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.
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.
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?
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.
This is written in response to your recent request for an opinion of this office on a question which we paraphrase as follows:
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.