Washington State

Office of the Attorney General

Attorney General

Bob Ferguson

Pending Attorney General's Office Formal Opinion Requests

The Washington Attorney General issues formal published opinions in response to requests by the heads of state agencies, state legislators, and county prosecuting attorneys.  When the Attorney General's Office receives a request for a formal opinion, a summary of that opinion request will be published here and distributed via our mailing list

Formal Requests:

Informal Requests:

If you are interested in commenting on any of these requests, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest by the date listed below each request.  This is not the due date by which comments must be received.  However, if you do not notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest in commenting on an opinion request by this date, the opinion may be issued before your comments have been received. 

 You may notify the Attorney General’s Office of your intention to comment by:

  • Writing to the Office of the Attorney General, Solicitor General Division, Attention: Jeff Even, Deputy Solicitor General, P.O. Box 40100, Olympia, Washington 98504-0100;  or
  • Emailing opinioncomments@atg.wa.gov.

When you notify the office of your intention to comment, you may be provided with:

  • A copy of the opinion request in which you are interested;
  • Information about the Attorney General’s Opinion process;
  • Information on how to submit your comments; and 
  • A due date by which your comments must be received to ensure that they are fully considered.

 

Formal Opinion Requests:


 

Opinion Docket No. 20-07-02 : Request by the Honorable Monica Stonier, State Representative, District 49

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office by September 2, 2020.

Does the authority of school districts to offer school-based health clinics remain limited in the manner described by AGO 1988 No. 2 and AGO 1989 No. 17 in light of subsequent legislation

Entire text of original request

 


 

Opinion Docket No. 20-07-04 : Request by the Honorable Amy Walen, State Representative, District 48

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office by September 2, 2020.

Is it acceptable for engineers to stamp and sign architectural drawings for permits prepared by non-professionals for projects not excepted under RCW 18.08.410?

Entire text of original request

 


 

Opinion Docket No. 19-07-01: Request by the Honorable Christine Kilduff, State Representative, District 28

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest by August 29, 2019

  1. May a local government prohibit or contest the release or less restrictive alternative placement of a person involuntarily committed to a state hospital or facility under RCW 71-05, 10.77, or 71.09 to a less restrictive setting, including an adult family home, when the person otherwise qualifies for release/LRA? Please consider in your answer at a minimum the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Fair Housing Act?
  2. May state government restrict the release or less restrictive alternative placement of a person involuntarily committed to a state hospital or facility under RCW 71.05, 10.77, or 71.09 to a less restrictive setting, by statutorily providing for density or radius restrictions on the location of adult family homes or by prohibiting any such person with a history of violence or sexual offense(s) from residing in such homes or another setting? Please consider in your answer at a minimum the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Federal Fair Housing Act?

Entire text of original request

 


 

Opinion Docket No. 19-02-01: Request by the Honorable Joe Schmick, State Representative, District 9

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest by March 13, 2019

Does RCW 18.100.050 (5)(b) prohibit physical and occupational therapists from having an ownership interest in a health care practice with health care professionals listed in RCW 18.100.050(5)(a)?

Entire text of original request

 


 

Opinion Docket No. 19-01-04: Request by Dale Slack, Prosecutor, Columbia County

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest by February 27, 2019

  1. Are state, county, and city elected officials within the State of Washington "employees" of their respective jurisdictions pursuant to RCW 50A.04.010(4)?
  2. Are state, county, and city elected officials within the State of Washington subject to withholding of Paid Family Medical Leave premiums as described by RCW 50A.04.115?

Entire text of original request

 


 

Opinion Docket No. 18-06-03 Requested by Warren Howe, MD, Chair, Washington State Medical Commission

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest by July 13, 2018

1. Does the phrase "the initiating or modifying of drug therapy in accordance with written guidelines or protocols previously established and approved for his or her practice by a practitioner authorized to prescribe drugs" include the act of diagnosing a patient's condition?

2. If the answer to tt I above is yes, is there a statutory or administrative requirement for direct contact between the non-pharmacist practitioner and the patient?

3. May a physician licensed under RCW 18.71 delegate the diagnosis of a patient to a pharmacist licensed under RCW 18.64?

4. Does a pharmacist who diagnoses patients pursuant to a CDTA with a physician commit an act of unlicensed practice of medicine under RCW 18.130.190?

5. May a physician assistant licensed under RCW I8.71A delegate the diagnosis of a patient to a pharmacist licensed under RCW 18.64?

6. Does a pharmacist who diagnoses patients pursuant to a CDTA. with a physician assistant commit an act of unlicensed practice as a physician assistant under RCW 18.130.190?

Entire text of original request

 


 

 

Informal Opinion Requests:


Opinion Docket No. 20-10-01: Request by the Honorable Liz Lovelett, State Senator, District 50

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office by October 22, 2020.

  1. Does the provision of the Interlocal Cooperation Act allowing Washington public agencies to use contracts established by other public agencies (RCW 39.34.030(5)(b)) include job order contracts as defined in RCW 39.10.210?
  2. Is the answer to the first question the same whether the other public agency is located within or outside Washington?

 


 

Opinion Docket No. 18-07-03: Request by the Honorable Joe Fain, State Senator, District 47

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest by August 7, 2018. 

  1. Does RCW 42.17A.555 require a City to prohibit initiative signature gathering on City property?
  2. Does RCW 42.17A.555 allow a City to prohibit initiative signature gathering on City property?
  3. If a City is aware of initiative signature gathering on City property, and takes no action to stop or prevent it, can the city or individual officials or employees be held liable for penalties, fees or costs, or other sanctions?

Background.

A citizen wants to collect signatures for an initiative at a Plaza in front of City Hall. The Plaza is not part of the City right-of-way. City policy in place since 2002 completely bans this activity in this location this activity based on RCW 42.17A.555’s (and its predecessor 42.17.130) prohibition against “allowing” anyone else to utilize City facilities for political campaigns, ballot measures, and election measures.

By letter dated November 10, 2009, the AG’s office addressed this issue as it relates to the placement of campaign signs on public property, and concluded in part that the statute would not prohibit the placement of signs in areas that are traditionally open for public expression, such as public sidewalks and associated rights-of-way.

 


 

Opinion Docket No. 18-08-01 Requested by the Honorabale Tina Orwall, State Representative, District 33

The Attorney General’s Office seeks public input on the following opinion request. If you are interested in commenting on this request, you should notify the Attorney General’s Office of your interest by October 11, 2017.

  1. If a city adopts by reference the state statutes defining misdemeanor crimes instead of enacting its own municipal code, does that act unconstitutionally delegate the city’s legislative authority?
  2. Is the Washington State Patrol obligated or authorized to accept and test DNA samples taken from individuals convicted of municipal misdemeanors that are equivalent to the state law misdemeanors listed in RCW 43.43.754(1)(a), but are adopted in the form of independent municipal ordinances?
  3. Do municipal offenses constitute prior offenses for purposes of felony prosecution (a) in all cases, (b) only if adopted by “incorporation by reference,” or (c) in no cases?
  4. Can a municipal sex offense that is equivalent to misdemeanor sex offenses under state statute can be treated as a sex offense for purposes of RCW 9A.44.130(1)(a) either (a) in all cases, (b) only if adopted by “incorporation by reference,” or (c) in no cases?
  5. Should convictions for equivalent crimes, whether state, separately-codified municipal, or “incorporated by reference,” be identified the same way or differently on criminal histories?”

Entire text of original request

 


Back to top