Other LanguagesBy 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.
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.
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:
This is written in response to your request for an opinion of this office on several questions which we paraphrase as follows:
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?"
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.
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:
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?
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?
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: