Other LanguagesThis 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.
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.
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.
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?"
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.
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?
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?
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).
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.
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: